>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 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> it's gambling.

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

▲

lacy_tinpot 6 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.

	▲	grehbies an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>People that are interest in it and are using it on a daily basis see value in it. I'm one of them. I've got plenty of image gens to prove it (and I'd have more if OpenAI hadn't killed Dall-E labs with almost no heads-up). I'm telling you that I still think contemporary implementations of the technology are just this side of vile, and that I hope that the industry collapses soon, so that grassroots start-ups with actual moral scruples, and a desire to enable rather than control their customers, have the chance to emerge and compete. Also: for said customers, such a collapse wouldn't even be THAT different from the way in which tech companies currently snatch away tools on a whim.
	▲	gtowey 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> 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.