Are people still in denial about the daily usage of AI?

It's interesting people from the old technological sphere viciously revolt against the emerging new thing.

Actually I think this is the clearest indication of a new technology emerging, imo.

If people are viciously attacking some new technology you can be guaranteed that this new technology is important because what's actually happening is that the new thing is a direct threat to the people that are against it.

▲

gtowey 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People attacked leaded gasoline as a collosal mistake even as the fuel corporations promoted it.

"Because people attack it, it therefore means it's good" is a overly reductionist logical fallacy.

Sometimes people resist for good reasons.

▲

lacy_tinpot 6 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

grehbies 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>Because leaded gas is the same thing as people using a new technology like AI.

It's not the same, but it's not necessarily any good. I've observed the following, after ~2 weeks of free ChatGPT Plus access (as an artist who is trying to give the technology a chance, despite the vociferous (not vicious, geez) objections of many of my peers):

It's addictive (possibly on purpose). AI systems frequently return imperfect outputs. Users are trained to repeat until the desired output comes. Obviously, this can be abused by sophisticated-enough systems, pushing outputs that are JUST outside the user's desire so that they have to continue using it. This could conceivably happen independent of obvious incentives like ads or pay credits; even free systems are incentivized to use this dark pattern, as it keeps the user coming back, building a habit that can be monetized later.

Which leads into: it's gambling. It's a crapshoot whether the output will be what the user desires. As a result, every prompt is like a slot pull, exacerbated by the wait to generate an answer. (This is also why the generation is shown being typed/developed; the information in those preliminary outputs is not high-enough fidelity or presented in a readable way; instead, they're bits of visual stimuli meant to inure your reward system to the task, similar to how Robinhood's stock prices don't simply change second-to-second, but "roll" to them with a stimulating animation).

That's just a small subset of the possible effects on a user over time. Far from freeing users to create, my experience has been one of having to fight ChatGPT and its Images model, as well as the undesirable behaviors it seems to be trying to draw out of me.

▲

gtowey 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> it's gambling.

I hadn't thought of that before, but your description certainly rings true. How insidious.

▲

lacy_tinpot 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think there is anything that can be said to actually change people's minds here. Because people that are against it aren't interested in actually engaging with this new technology.

People that are interest in it and are using it on a daily basis see value in it. There are now hundreds of millions of active users that find a lot of value in using it.

The other factor here is the speed of adoption, which I think has seriously taken a lot of people by surprise. Especially those trying this wholesale boycot campaign of AI. For that reason people artificially boycotting this new technology are imo deluded.

If it were advocating for Open source models it would be far more reasonable.

	▲	gtowey 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Because people that are against it aren't interested in actually engaging with this new technology. How do you know that? Are you just assuming anyone who has something negative to say just hasn't used it? In my case it's absolutely not true. I've used it near daily for coding tasks and a handful of times for other random writing or research tasks. In a few cases I've actively encouraged a few others to try it. From direct experience I can say it's definitely not ready for prime time. And I like the way most companies are trying to deploy it even less. There is something there with LLMs, but the way they're being productized and commercialized does not seem healthy. I would rather see more research, slow testing and trials, and a clear understanding of the potential negatives for society before we simply dump it into the public sphere. The only mind I see not willing to be changed is yours when you characterize any push back against AI as simply ignorant haters. You are clearly wrong about that.

▲

gtowey 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The lengths people will go to in order to maintain their delusions is truly astounding to me.

Indeed.

▲

wavemode 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"vicious"? Temper your emotions a bit.

In fact I would make a converse statement to yours - you can be certain that a product is grift, if the slightest criticism or skepticism of it is seen as a "vicious attack" and shouted down.

▲

lacy_tinpot 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Did you even click the link. It's a rant I would get banned for repeating it here. Actually even the title here says "nuclear".

So yes. Vicious.

Your problem is actually with my point, which you didn't address, not really, and instead resort to petty remarks that tries to discredit what's being said.

It's often the last resort.

▲

trinsic2 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yep. I hear that "vicious attack" phrase from plenty of people with narcissistic personality disorders in the tech industry in an attempt to try and shift the narrative. Its sick, really.

▲

lacy_tinpot 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You clearly didn't read or even bother with opening the link did you.

In fact if it's not "vicious" quote it here.

▲

trinsic2 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The word "vicious" this context is being used to drive a narrative, its not really used to actually have anything useful to say.

▲

lacy_tinpot 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It is descriptive. The attack against AI is quite literally "vicious".

	▲	trinsic2 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are confusing "vicious" with "justified backlash for inhumane treatment of individuals"

▲

Jyaif 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If people are viciously attacking some new technology you can be guaranteed that this new technology is important

I don't think that's such a great signal: people were viciously attacking NFTs.

▲

lacy_tinpot 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

NFTs are still being used. Along with a lot of the crypto ecosystem. In fact we're increasingly finding legitimate use cases for it.

	▲	turzmo 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Claiming that NFTs are still being used is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the facts.
	▲	elktown 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> NFTs are still being used. Along with a lot of the crypto ecosystem. In fact we're increasingly finding legitimate use cases for it. Look at this. I think people need to realize that it's the same kind of folks migrating from gold rush to gold rush. If it's complete bullshit or somewhat useful doesn't really matter to them.

▲

mrguyorama 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is a subset of human beings so absurdly and brokenly conspiratorial that "is attacked" is something they consider the strongest possible signal.

It's insane.

▲

CerryuDu 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I've tested the "emerging new thing", and it's utter trash.