Why is it the people posting positive comments who are "responding to incentives" by posting more, while it's the people posting negative comments who do so by stopping posting? Like, your exact points work equally well with the polarity reversed: the anti-AI influencer/grifter ecosystem is well-developed at this point, and many people desperately want AIs to be useless.

I don't know if the original claim about sentiment is true, but if it is, I don't think yours or blibble's (conflicting) claims about the reason are very believable.

▲

Capricorn2481 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Like, your exact points work equally well with the polarity reversed: the anti-AI influencer/grifter ecosystem is well-developed at this point, and many people desperately want AIs to be useless

Maybe it's equal for non-tech people. But I don't think a lot of tech people are desperate for AI to be useless, I think they're desperate for it to be useful.

If you're someone who is smart enough to work with or without AI and you just find the tools not that helpful, I doubt you're all that worried about being replaced. But when we see companies increasingly bullish on something we know doesn't work that well, it's a bit worrying.

▲

blibble 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

because there's no sweet tech-oligarch job, early access to the latest model, OpenAI speaking engagement invite, or larger bonus to be awarded by being aiphobic?

seems patently obvious

▲

simonw 3 days ago | parent [-]

There are a few people making decent enough money on the paid newsletter/speaking gig circuit for AI phobia these days.

It's a tougher gig though, because teaching people how NOT to use AI won't provide those customers as much value as teaching them how to use it.

(Because it works.)

▲

blibble 3 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	llmslave2 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Tech companies will be seen the same way as cigarette companies, and their apologists seen like the doctors and scientists who were paid to lie.