Remix.run Logo
lsy 2 hours ago

There's a very real possibility that AI proponents completely lose the next generation of adults. The output is not enjoyable to consume, the people who rely on it are not cool, and the effects of using it are unpleasant and hard to defend on aesthetic, intellectual, or moral grounds.

There are real use cases for this technology! But the idea that the generation of superficially plausible text is "the next Industrial Revolution" comes out of the same mindset that has turned a neat technology into a banal hellscape for consumers and employees. We desperately need some leadership in companies or institutions that can place this technology in its proper context, and leverage it without getting manic about it.

mywacaday 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My great hope for AI is that it kills social media by making 99% of content and comments untrustworthy and not worth consuming.

altairprime 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Social media isn’t always about consuming content. It’s also about getting jolts of momentary joy and reward. You get those in two ways: seeing cool things, and participating in cool things. Especially cool things before they go viral. Clicking like on a post that isn’t viral yet, and gambling to yourself whether it will go viral, has the same dopamine flux when it pays off as winning at the slots. Even my reward-defective brain manages to eke out a moment of reward from that. So if you simply remove the content, what’s left is the gambling market. Gambling on something you upvote going viral isn’t about how much content there is in what you placed your bets on, it’s about being able to have that special knowing look when someone tells you about it because you’ve just won the socio-memetic lottery. And AI isn’t doing anything whatsoever to stop that reward loop.

I proposed once a while back that we should have the HN admins strip all integer counts for a week server-side, to see if the site quality improved or worsened during that time. The mods suggested I ask HN, so I did. HN loathed the idea of it, for every possible reason except this one: removing all those integers would be like quitting gambling cold turkey after years of pulling the vote lever every day. I’m not much less vulnerable to this than everyone else, but I still want to see it happen someday. I remain reasonably confident that our social media site’s quality would skyrocket after a couple days of our posts and comments being disinfected of make-integer-go-up jackpots.

MSFT_Edging an hour ago | parent [-]

The vote counting thing can be interesting.

There's the classic "I wish facebook had a dislike button" or the equivalent for twitter.

But in the thread-based forum context, removing the downvote has interesting effects. For one, it stops people who down-vote-brigade to lower visibility. It also stops the "I don't like that guy" engagement and works on a more positive "I appreciated this comment" mode.

It's not one-size fits all but I've seen positive effects on more marginalized forums.

Bombthecat 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Doubt that. Meta got the right idea, ai influencers to your taste.

So, now people are in groups and chats full of bots posting exactly what they want to hear.

Instead of meta b it's states, companies, or individuals hoping to make money from their followers

notaustinpowers 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The content being untrustworthy doesn't matter when it comes to social media, as most of what is enticing about social media nowadays isn't the content of the content. It's the fact that there is a never-ending stream of content specifically catered to maximize your dopamine to keep you scrolling.

So much of social media nowadays is just low quality clips of TV shows/movies with an AI-generated song over them. Or the same Minecraft parkour map as an AI voice recites an r/AmITheAsshole post. Or AI-generated funny videos. The quality of the content doesn't matter at all.

Anyone I've talked to about how it was all just AI just responds with something akin to "I don't care if it's AI, it's funny! Let people enjoy things!"

breakpointalpha an hour ago | parent [-]

People love hot dogs. People don't want to know how they are made.

notahacker an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Twitter arguably did that a while ago.

fullshark 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have this hope too but social media is junk food now, and junk food is a very lucrative product. People don't seem to care as long as it's engaging.

surgical_fire an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If that happens, AI will have been worth the hassle.

linuxftw 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That describes social media for the last 10 years, at least. Not dead yet.

multiplegeorges 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When the leading CEOs are saying the next generation will be unemployed due to AI... uh yeah, you're gonna lose them!

ianm218 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Isn't it bad now that Sam Altman and the others are backpedaling on this and going "jobs are going to still exist you just can't imagine them!" because the PR problem was getting so big? [1]

Like don't we want people running these companies to be honest to the public rather than misdirection?

[1]. https://www.platformer.news/sam-altman-ai-backlash/

xg15 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> "jobs are going to still exist you just can't imagine them!"

Ironically, this makes even less sense.

If (ostensibly) the goal of developing LLMs was so we can all create more while working less, but he also assures us there will be just as much work in the future, then what was the point of this tech in the first place?

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> don't we want people running these companies to be honest

What about any of these folks’ biographies hints that they’re capable of being honest?

saghm an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Which one of those things he said do you consider "honest" and not PR? Both of them sound like PR to me, just aimed at different audiences

ianm218 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

I think before he thought OpenAI was going to make him a trillionaire he was more honest about X Risk and job displacement since he didn't have the incentive to lie. Most early AI thinkers saw AI as more dangerous than nukes.

> We founded Anthropic because we believe the impact of AI might be comparable to that of the industrial and scientific revolutions, but we aren’t confident it will go well. [1]

[1]. https://www.anthropic.com/news/core-views-on-ai-safety

frb an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IMHO shrugging it off as “superficially plausible text” is the extreme to the other side.

We’re past plausible text since GPT-2 and it’s undeniable that the technology is making waves right now and is having an impact.

As you can’t judge the impact of the Industrial Revolution by the first steam engines, you can’t dismiss the impact the technology is having right now.

xg15 an hour ago | parent [-]

In writing code, yes. But has there been an actual positive impact in other fields?

frb an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Medicine?

There was recently an article shared around here that an LLM diagnosed ER patients more accurately than doctors.

Looking beyond LLMs image analysis to detect cancer and other diseases.

Like in coding, AI can and should be a useful tool for the human who decides and is ultimately responsible.

grebc 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

If you read more than the headline it was not how doctors diagnose patients in an ER(small text only description of symptoms).

bogzz an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Remember when IBM claimed the same about Watson?

cdrnsf an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No. It ruins art, ruins music, ruins communication and on and on. It's cancerous with respect to anything related to art or cultural value.

pixel_popping an hour ago | parent [-]

Why "ruins"? just because it's not made by a human?

AI-made music is frankly pretty good, do you actually listen to it?

piva00 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

What's the point of listening to purely AI-generated music?

I don't mean music that has AI-generated stems as part of an arrangement, where a human actually created it and used AI for bits and pieces, I don't see absolutely any point on listening to purely AI-generated music. The fundamental essence of music is emotion, listening to something generated without emotion has no point, it might sound good but it's hollow and devoid of meaning.

I've tried to listen to it, it doesn't even make me "sad", it makes me feel... Nothing. I'm a hobby musician and I incorporated some AI-generated parts in some tracks where I mangled/processed them but my idea was exactly to express how hollow AI-generated music is without the human aspect.

pixel_popping 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

Many music that are in autoplay on Spotify are AI and I literally didn't know until I checked, the emotion was triggered successfully, I don't really see why only a human could be able to trigger you an emotion? Like if I'm at a party, let say I don't know the artist and everything is AI made and everybody is vibing, then what's "wrong" with it?

I think this is more of a musician side which I respect, but a lot of people would simply not care who created it (or what).

piva00 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

Most people don't care about music, as most don't care about art in general. People like entertainment though.

What you are describing is more akin to a form of hollow entertainment through the medium of music, a lot of pop music can also fall into that category (no, not all, there is also a lot of artistry is many pop artists/songs).

If AI-generated music triggers emotions on you then keep consuming it but knowing that it's a hollow form of the art, there's no one on the other side communicating with you, it's basically like having a conversation with a chatbot, it might sound human but you know that there's no one on the other side listening to you. AI music is the other way: there's no one on the other side telling you a story, or a feeling they went through, it's just a mimesis of it.

cdrnsf an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have. It's overly polished, formulaic and dull. It's devoid of any of the qualities that make music interesting. There's nothing a human is trying to communicate. Perhaps it could be used as elevator or hold music.

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
pixelpoet an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree, it's shockingly good these days; we can argue about morality etc, fine, but burying one's head in the sand and claiming it's bad puts you at odds with reality, which isn't a good place to be.

It's pretty silly that so many people take as an axiom that the human brain basically has a monopoly on certain patterns of electrical signals, and have semi-religious beliefs that this will always be the case.

unconed 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

It's not that AI can't convince a novice that what comes out is passible.

It's that experts in a field generally agree that what comes out is insidiously hollow garbage.

This isn't a "semi-religious" belief. It's linear token soup and diffusion bakes running headfirst into actual expertise, second and third order effects, refined skill and taste, and so on.

If you actually want to see civilization advance, you cannot rely on machines that merely mash up existing intellectual output while pretending to have expertise.

We already had that in the form of art school avant-gardism. AI is just style transfer of that, with corporate sycophancy and valley hyperbole as a veneer.

pixel_popping 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

But you really believe it will stay that way? What do you think models will be 10 years from now? (not only models, we must include processes and tools in it) - developers were thinking this until recently there is some sort of sudden switch where "shit, it's good enough" and then pass this in a 50x loop and suddenly it becomes "shit, it's actually great" which proves it's a matter of time imo before it's not hollow garbage but actually innovative and expert in its field.

cdrnsf 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

If it's generated by a model, I would avoid listening to it. Much like I'd void a visual or video generated by a model.

pixel_popping an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

support of all kind (including voice), marketing, real-estate, financial... yes, a ton of fields are being very impacted right now but right now doesn't even matter, what matter is what we know it will reach as theory will become practice.

bojan 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

Generally, people don't care about "fields being impacted", and the students certainly don't. People care about the impact certain technology has on their daily lives, on their welfare and the ability to pay off their mortgage and provide a decent life for their children.

The AI as it is today isn't really doing any of those things. At most, it's a sort of reliable replacement fot Google Search. Worden ehen, it's being presented as threat to all those things the people care about.

hellisothers an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

“In producing textiles but has there been actual positive impact in other sectors?” I’m sure the Industrial Revolution didn’t just happen all at once, it started somewhere and crept.

JohnMakin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They have to frame it this way, because the market has invested in it being "the next internet" kind of event.

pixel_popping 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's much more than that, it will solve the deepest mysteries of the universe, not now, but in a decade, very likely.

bogzz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You sound manic.

timmytokyo 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

Or religious. Or both.

Aurornis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> There's a very real possibility that AI proponents completely lose the next generation of adults.

The college-age students I interact with hate AI content from other people, but they love using AI for their own work.

They'll pump AI generated memes and AI altered images all day long. Then they'll use ChatGPT to do their homework and write their resume, then look for an AI tool that will spam apply to jobs for them. Then when they get the job they plan to use ChatGPT to level the playing field with more experienced, older peers.

That's not even getting into the AI entrepreneurs who think they're going to use AI to start a company or find a winning strategy to trade memecoins or bet on PolyMarket so they don't have to get a job at all.

I think the next generation is all-in on AI for their own use. They see it as their advantage over the boomers occupying all the good jobs. They think ChatGPT is their cheat code for getting into these companies and taking those jobs.

spijdar 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> comes out of the same mindset that has turned a neat technology into a banal hellscape for consumers and employees

I'm going to say up front that I'm not as familiar with this period of history as I should be, but -- would it be totally unfair to say the same of the "Industrial Revolution"?

I'm not gonna say they're equivalent by any means, but my understanding is the "Industrial Revolution" was hellish for many people. Maybe the mistake is the framing that "the revolution" or "the next big thing" is always a good thing?

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> the mistake is the framing that "the revolution" or "the next big thing" is always a good thing?

They are good things. If you were an adult, male aristocrat, yes, your untouched meadows and streams got tainted. If you were a woman you stopped dying in childbirth. If you think of infants as people, they stopped massively dying.

The Industrial Revolution was good. But it also required erecting the modern administrative state to manage. People had to soberly measure the problems, weigh the benefits and risks, and then invent new institutions and ways of thinking to accommodate the new world.

setopt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It was good on a long time scale, but I think the parent poster refers to the short term. If I recall correctly, during the early Industrial Revolution the average life span decreased, child mortality went through the roof, and malnutrition meant adults lost their teeth in their early 20s at best. That was… worse. It took time for the revolution to become a net-positive for the average person (which I certainly wouldn’t dispute).

cjs_ac 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> They are good things. If you were an adult, male aristocrat, yes, your untouched meadows and streams got tainted. If you were a woman you stopped dying in childbirth. If you think of infants as people, they stopped massively dying.

That happened in the Second Industrial Revolution. The First Industrial Revolution was much less comfortable for both workers (who were given much worse working conditions) and the aristocracy (whose landholdings were much less valuable) - it was the middle class who benefited.

> The Industrial Revolution was good.

The outcomes of the Industrial Revolutions were good. The experience of living through those revolutions was mixed.

torben-friis an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The public can't see any trains, electricity, concrete or glass windows, they see employment going away as workers and zero benefit as consumers.

Maybe AI enables great inventions in a decade, but for now the only appeal is that multinational corporations get to fire workers and everything's filled with slop. Of course they're not happy.

pasquinelli 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

maybe what we really need is a butlerian jihad

grebc 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

They were thinking machines at least. Here’s we’ve got a good guesser that fools 50% of the population at anytime that it’s anything but guessing.

fullshark 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That will happen inevitably, we are throwing spaghetti at the wall right now, and cleaning up the mess, lessons will be learned. The question is whether that phase will lead to real lasting damage and to what. For myself I no longer read cold emails, I believe they are all AI generated, and that communication method may legitimately die culturally. What else will be destroyed?

pixel_popping 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Many things will change, because many things are currently useless in the world right now, literally most jobs in a way shouldn't even exist. You think a guy behind the mcdo counter should exist? It shouldn't, that just an engineering "mistake" as it can already be solved, the world is just slow to catch-up, but it's not only AI, that's just automation. We banked for decades on jobs that virtually shouldn't exist except for the sole purpose of creating jobs, it's like a giant ponzi scheme literally and it will all catch-up at some point.

I think Society will completely reshape itself over the next decades, likely with UBI and other form of social help and the ones that don't want to partake into the whole "AI orchestration" will just not have any opportunity imo, sad, but this is the way I see it. I truly believe it because myself and ALL the people I know have pseudo-replaced their work with solely orchestrating AI, including very complex jobs and lately because some of my friends asked me, I've also built "agents" that replaced entirely their work, and their employer don't even know about it (customer management, remote) which proves that those jobs shouldn't even exist as they are ALREADY replaceable, all Zoom meetings are immediately recorded, agents do basic loop adversarial with all common models, then proceed with doing tasks and so-on, that last for about 30min and the whole week of work is done, all chats are directly sent to a triage agent as well then the whole rag thing and so on.

My work went from managing/developing 1 repo to 70 repo at once, evening to morning answering questions like a bot 10h a day with 8 monitors in front of my face, and I'm realistic, I know at some point I can literally replace my own self with an AI as well to answer for me, it's just a matter of time.

We need to rethink everything and the whole AI hate from the youth will not change anything about it.

I have multiple friends also running pretty large businesses with 30 or more staff, and right now they are literally at a point where they argue about why they shouldn't fire most of them, it's fuckin sad, but it's the reality.

whatshisface an hour ago | parent [-]

Why would they give you a UBI? They would have no reason to do that...

pixel_popping an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Many countries have a form of UBI, although it's not guaranteed as the meaning of UBI would in a sense, but look at France with their RSA as an example, if you have no incomes/low incomes, you are entitled to it.

piva00 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

RSA is not UBI, UBI literally means Universal Basic Income, it's not for no income/low income people, it's universal.

You are conflating the concept of UBI with social welfare, they are different things and it's a bit annoying to see the erosion of the UBI concept into social welfare, I've noticed an uptick of this the past year or so, no idea where it's originating from...

intended an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Where will this ubi money come from when there is no one to tax and profits are going to tech firms based in America.

pixel_popping 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

I don't have enough expertise in this field but I don't think we should be thinking only with a doomsday scenario, humans are quite resilient and innovative, society will completely change and I genuinely believe we will find ways, there will be a lot of suffering in between (and maybe after as well, as there is now) but we might eventually reach a point in automation where a lot of prices drop to the point where it's virtually free, food could be included, if we do have 24/7 machines that can build, expand, deliver and so-on with free energy somehow, it's not crazy to think that a KG of chicken could worth 10 times less than it is now, so many things could be reconsidered.

UBI could mean also that people could be living in places further away from main cities, and eventually housing will be automatically built as well so costs could drop sharply.

piva00 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

Of course humans will adapt, the core issue is how we can avoid as much suffering as possible while these changes happen, that's always the point. No one wants to live a life during a transitional period in history where suffering is increased, as a species we should be working to alleviate that.

What's the point of progress if we keep repeating the same mistakes of leaving miserable people behind? Is that progress or just a repetition of the cycle with new shiny things?

MSFT_Edging an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Additionally, certain work feels good. It feels good to accomplish something.

We'll have no UBI and little purpose.

whateveracct 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

as is tradition. an AI boom is always followed by an AI winter haha

ilaksh an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The people who rely on it are not cool.

That's the only statement that's true. Admiting to AI use is unfashionable in the western world at this time.

But how much would you like to bet that 90% of those students who were booing also used AI to do their homework for them quite often? So your take away would be "the AI stole their education". No, they were dishonest and the AI helped them cheat themselves out of learning.

Technology doesn't make anything banal or a hellscape, or fire people. Technology is a lever.

If humans use AI to produce worse output because they are too lazy to bother reviewing and iterating on it, that is a human problem. If humans are going to use AI to help them exploit other humans more efficiently, that is also caused by the human rather than the technology.

Also, the ChatGPT moment for humanoid robots is coming this year or next. It will become very obvious that AI use in these robots is not just superficially plausible text.

teachrdan an hour ago | parent [-]

> But how much would you like to bet that 90% of those students who were booing also used AI to do their homework for them quite often? So your take away would be "the AI stole their education". No, they were dishonest and the AI helped them cheat themselves out of learning.

This is like saying a smoker can't criticize the tobacco industry. It's entirely possible to recognize that AI in school is a huge problem while (hypothetically, in this case) still using it. Indeed, if enough of your peers are using it and you do not, you are effectively being punished for being virtuous. It's a lot like being the one cyclist in the Tour de France who isn't doping.

Similarly, if your peers aren't able to keep a conversation going in a seminar because they had AI do their reading and assignments for them, then you, as a student, are having your education stolen from you in a very real way. Education is something that happens in community. When enough of your community is using AI, your education will suffer.

ilaksh an hour ago | parent [-]

Again that is a problem with the group of people and how they use technology rather than the technology itself.

I will die on this hill: AI _properly_ integrated into education will be a huge improvement for students because it will enable each student to have personalized instruction and tutoring.

teachrdan 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> AI _properly_ integrated into education will be a huge improvement for students because it will enable each student to have personalized instruction and tutoring.

This is a fine thing to wish for. But literally every AI company today wants their customers to use AI as much as possible.

I, too, would like to live in a world where AI is only _properly_ integrated into education. But that is impossible without limiting its improper integration. An no AI company wants any limits on AI.

filoeleven 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Will they get AI to stop lying first?

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> a very real possibility that AI proponents completely lose the next generation of adults

I doubt it. AI seems fundamentally useful. If the guys at the top can’t get their shit together with messaging and strategy, and it increasingly looks like they can’t, they’ll be replaced before an entire generation is potentially rendered permanently uncompetitive. (And to be clear, there is no rush to adopt.)

> We desperately need some leadership in companies or institutions that can place this technology in its proper context

We need the public debate to stop being set by Altman, Musk et al. We need our generation’s Dickens, Tolstoys, Sinclairs and Whitmans.

What are the ways potential futures with AI, on the spectrum from the familiar sci-fi AGI to more-subtle forms, could work? What are the novel ways it might not? How does capitalism need to evolve? Electoral democracy? Labour organization? If I think to the last few years of television and movies, Westworld is the only one to have contributed anything original to the discourse since Isaac Asimov’s era of science fiction.

Planktonne 6 minutes ago | parent [-]

> We need our generation’s Dickens, Tolstoys, Sinclairs and Whitmans.

They're out there, but the artists are roundly anti-AI; if you want their input, you have to listen to what they're saying, rather than pretending that dissenting voices are uninformed.

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
ReptileMan an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

pixel_popping 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't really think we should talk about it with "use cases" anymore when it can virtually replace/enhance literally almost any form of white collar work and soon physical labor as well (people will act surprised the moment it comes of course, the same as with LLMs despite all the researchs made prior, if theory supports it = it will be), of course humanoids will be in every homes and they'll cost the same as a phone, soon enough, and we will also not be able to live without.

We don't talk about human intelligence with "use cases", I think we need to be realistic about what AI will be in our lives, most people already can't do without, and this will without doubt expand further.

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
player1234 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]