It’s not AI that’s the problem. AI is an amazingly powerful tool (I’m an AI researcher).
The problem is that it’s in the hands of psychotic technofascist greedy subhumans that want to destroy basically all of society so their stock can go up 0.001%. If we can cut out the source of the cancer, the body can begin to heal itself.
Is it? I keep hearing people keep parroting this but what big advancements have we made cause of AI?
As a developer, I keep hearing this but all I see is low quality software that is all smoke and mirrors. Pumping out low quality code at a high pace is worse than pumping out less but higher quality code.
Dude, ChatGPT just solved an Erdős problem a few days ago and Mythos is exploiting decade old undiscovered 0-days in OSes and capable of pivoting 0-day Firefox bugs into full blown root access.
Yeah, I get that the viral “how many 'r’s are in strawberry” stuff is funny, but the idea that historical issues with transformers is preventing them from accelerating peak capabilities way beyond what most experts thought was possible just years ago is borderline delusional.
The field is moving so fast at this point that if you are basing any sense of limitations on even ~2mo old sampling, your conclusions are likely out of date.
They aren’t a silver bullet for everything (yet) but how capable they are at the things transformers are starting to be specialized into is well past the avg practitioner.
I’ve been writing software for well over a decade and the modern agents do a better job than I would around 90% of the time. Yes, I’ll occasionally need to bring up issues with their work, but I’d say at this point around 50% of the times I think they made a mistake I was actually the one who was wrong.
This is only within around the last 3-4 months that it’s been like this.
Literally name any single industry with anything, and AI has vastly pushed it forward. It’s way to big to type here. Just off the top of my head: climate, pharmaceutical, other biomedical stuff (neuroscience, genetics, medical advances in every possible body system), energy (that alone has THOUSANDS of huge advances), science in general (astrophysics, geophysics, chemistry, agriculture, I mean every single scientific field). I’m listing every field I can think of, because it’s that pervasive.
The most visible advances which is just in like business/productivity for the sake of making money, I’d argue is the least important. It’s most important for a capitalist society that values profit over all else, but that’s a recipe for collapse, which is where we’re quickly headed.
lol please, go research something before you make any claims on it. No I’m not talking about datacenters fucking over the water supply or using fossil fuels, that’s bad obviously. Literally right now go google “AI used in climate science”. Just go do it. You’ll learn.
Are we talking about machine learning which has been around for a decade or generative AI? People usually mean the latter. Machine learning isn’t what caused the AI craze.
I honestly am curious in how an LLM could improve the climate in anyway.
And imo leaving the datacenters out is kind of a bad faith argument, it’s the only reason why it’s everywhere. It wouldn’t be a problem if it was basically a new computation tool used by niche professions.
It’s truly amazing that when an expert in the field says something, they still cover their eyes and ears and say you’re wrong, they’re always right.
If someone did this with any field, they’d be called willfully ignorant. But because you work in Current Thing, you’re now against them, for being honest with the reality of your job.
Bet these are the same people who think they’re the rational ones and everyone else is a fool or paid actors.
Right! If you don’t count the mass surveillance boost, the autonomous killing machines they’re trying to make, the environmental impact, the pillaging of our individual experiences, and the destruction of all our shared spaces online, AI is a pretty cool tool.
Making no mistakes is a much higher standard than that which we hold to ourselves. Why are people moving the goalposts of intelligence or usefulness behind perfection?
Bc when I use a calculator, I actually DO expect literal perfection. And when I use google search, I expect it to be “useful”. And when I find information in Wikipedia, I expect it to be somewhat authoritative, even if incomplete. And if I use automative driving features, I expect them not to completely take over the wheel and crash me into a brick wall… or to a little child in a crosswalk right in front of me.
People who drive drunk lose their privileges to drive anymore. Employees who screw up that often get fired. Doctors who dispense incorrect medical advice lose their ability to practice medicine, plus get exposed to lawsuits. Counselors who tell their patients to kill themselves… Anyway, people DO experience the consequences of their actions, like ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Whereas in contrast, AI is said that it is “going to be” great, not that it is great now. Fine, finish it and then we’ll talk. In the meantime, stop shoving it in front of my face.
If AI is like a human, it’s at best 2-year-old and at worst more like 6 months. It should not be “in charge”, e.g. of dispensing medical advice. But since it takes so much time to check its results for errors, it is literally slower and more painful to use it than to not use it (sometimes, often in fact).
You have a point somewhere buried in your mind, as revealed by the insightful first sentence, but your phrasing in the second sentence reads like sea-lioning and is not helping. Nobody is asking for “behind perfection” as that is literally mathematically impossible, and that is not what “moving the goalposts” means. It should not be enough to sound intelligent - we need to actually be such (same for AI as well).
And Google search has been spotty since the beginning.
And Wikipedia article quality … varies.
Like people, if you give AI a sufficiently complex problem, it won’t get it 100% right on the first pass. But, if you give it enough detail to distinguish an acceptable solution from an unacceptable one, it might get 80% of what you’re looking for on the first pass, boost that to 96% on the 2nd pass, 99% on the 3rd pass, and eventually what’s left is simple enough that it finally does get it 100% right.
Anybody who accepts the first thing AI tells them with today’s tech, is using it wrong.
Your “if” there is doing an awfully lot of the heavy lifting. Fwiw, I’m not talking special-purpose, custom-built LLMs - a large part of the problem is the lack of precision language uses to describe the concepts under discussion.
Both of these would be better called “cheating” than “AI”, but seeing as how AI both makes it easier and more to the point so many companies (such as Oracle) are literally pushing their programmers (those remaining anyway) to exclusively write programs using AI rather than by themselves, the very definition of “cheating” will need to be reexamined as a result.
In the examples also take note of how poor quality the LLM output is - e.g. regardless of whether the source is Grok or Claude or whatever, those therapy examples are not helpful in the slightest. Your counterargument might be that these are the “cheap” (aka free) AIs, but preemptively I will say in response: they still count as “AI”, especially in the context of the OP.
As far as “cheating” goes, ever since I got out of the game of paying a bunch of academics to judge and label me, I have been actively encouraged to “cheat” by the people who pay me money… that’s real life.
If you’re using a Ginsu knife to knead dough, you might not have optimal results. Claude is pretty good at code, since about 4-6 months ago. Grok? last time I asked Grok for anything it was the fastest LLM on the market, and the most non-sensical - usless trash.
Okay but Grok is still surely part of the “Anxiety around AI is growing rapidly in the US, research shows” phenomena, as Grok is one of the various AIs that people are aware of, and anxious about.
Your words read to me like you have kept yourself aware of the positive benefits of using AI - which many people on Lemmy including to some degree myself - have done far less of.
Technology up to the dawn of the AI slop era was indeed expected to be perfect. When it wasn’t, we fixed it so it would be.
Why should AI be exempt from this? Techbros have convinced you that it should be so that their favourite lines go up.
There’s literally nothing more to it. A hammer is useless if it only drives 50% of the nails you hit with it. Why the fuck should we expect anything less than triple or quad 9 accuracy from AI if its so god damned “intelligent”?
All of that is because the incentives are coming from those with the most power/money who are the most psychotic cancer cells in the history of the world. You’re only aware of such a tiny sliver of it because that’s the most problematic and gets the most news. Those are all huge problems that need to be solved, but the cause isn’t AI. AI is just an accelerant for a sick hypercapitalist society that is doomed to collapse. AI itself has been used for millions of great things that improve all of life on earth, but in the hands of these psychopaths it’s just being used for the ultimate triumph of Capital over Labor, at the expense of literally everything else on earth.
AI is just an accelerant for a sick hypercapitalist society that is doomed to collapse.
I had, like, a bunch of paragraphs lined up because I thought you didn’t understand this. But as it turns out, you seem to be perfectly okay with the world being raped to death.
I hope your academic field is entertaining, at least.
I know. I am perfectly capable of reading more than one comment.
zd9, you are aware that AI is making things worse, you say so yourself, and yet you feel the unsatable need to stand here bitching that no one understands your unique, special use case. For what?
I. Do. Not. Give. A. Fuck. that academics are using machine learning to solve problems. That is their business. <- Is that what you wanted? There you go.
So do you feel this hatred towards Monte Carlo sampling methods, or Gaussian Mixture Models, or Finite Element Method solvers? It’s all just math and it is being applied towards both how to grow crops better and how to make bombs. Seems pretty naive.
Do you hate the concept of iron alloy? Because it was used for hundreds of years in swords and weapons to kill millions of people. See how silly that sounds?
Iron alloy doesn’t convince people they shouldn’t have their noose visible in case someone might see it and intervene. You’re not going to change my mind. Once the bubble is popped and all our lives get worse and 3 people control all the technology it’s not going to matter that it saves people time, or it creates efficiency.
Just because you don’t like my points doesn’t mean I’m arguing in bad faith, and I find it a little insulting that you’re trying to dodge instead of responding to my point by insinuating I am.
No I’m saying you’re not even trying to understand, you’re just saying you don’t like it no matter what. To that I said, ok keep living in your echochamber. I’m not saying that’s bad faith, it’s just not trying to reach truth.
we really need to get back to throwing rocks at each other, it’s much less environmentally impactful and puts us on a much more level playing field, only the rich control all these techno-marvels.
I was excited about the idea of purpose-built systems trained on specific datasets to be help find complex patterns to diagnose diseases or suggest potential molecules for specific purposes.
Then the LLM shit started and everyone started fantasizing about intelligent “AI” just because it was able to reproduce patterns of language that seem relevant to a given input. Some of those funding it kept chasing that dream and are convinced that, if they just throw more compute at the problem, they can evolve the renaissance AGI that can do anything. Then they can fire every worker and be bazillionaires with robot slaves and never have to work another day of their lives… and fuck everyone and everything else.
It’s amazing what we can ruin when we let greed and selfishness drive our society.
They actually have a disorder or disease. However in this case their disorder is destroying the rest of the world. There’s a fast approaching point that the world organism will self-heal to prevent its own death.
Maybe it’s because I’ve only ever had at most a comfortable income but I truly don’t understand the mentality of needing so much money.
I don’t get paid as much as my peers but I make enough to be comfortable. I am my own department and, aside from emergencies and other high priority situations, I manage myself and choose what to work on when. I have a decent work life balance. Because I make enough to be comfortable (in large part because my landlord promised not to raise our rent - early in the COVID lockdown - if we were “good tenants” and has managed to keep true to her word) I don’t feel the need for more. That balance is worth not making the 20% more a year I might get somewhere else because I can’t guarantee I won’t have a shitty boss that doesn’t let me have that work/life balance.
They’ve been fantasizing about that ever since “computers” started growing in accessibility - in the 1960s…
Fantasizing wasn’t the best choice of words - I often understate what I mean to communicate at an attempt at humor. I should have said "everyone started fantasizingbecoming so obsessed with intelligent “AI” that they’re willing to dump a significant portion of the world’s resources just because… "
The current crop is just the first time such things have been delivered with something resembling “average” human responses.
That’s more or less what I meant by “patterns of language that seem relevant to a given input”. I was attempting to understate this in order to exaggerate the villainous eagerness and stupidity of greedy, rich fucks.
becoming so obsessed with intelligent “AI” that they’re willing to dump a significant portion of the world’s resources just because…
The late 90s .com bubble was very eye opening for me.
Top 1% (and up) wealthy people I have known often think in terms of “getting to the next level” - and no matter where you are, there’s always a next level. Even the wealthiest people in the world aren’t the most powerful in various circles, the most popular, the most well liked, the most beautiful… there’s always that next unattainable step to vie for.
When there’s a chaotic upheval, like .com, or AI, that’s opportunity to reposition - and as many of these people are older, YOLO - they’ll put significant capital at risk to try - especially those wealthy enough to make siginificant plays with less than 10% or less than 1% of their current net worth…
During .com, starting programmers’ salaries doubled within less than a year - pretty much directly as a result of this opening of the powerful people’s wealth hoardes putting them in competition with each other to hire everyone they could who could help them try to capitalize “on that .com stuff.”
We were “seeking investment” before .com hit, after it hit investment was seeking us: satellite calls with guys from their yachts in the South Pacific… wild times.
Once you hit the 0.01% most wealthy, it’s beyond “villainous eagerness and stupidity of greedy, rich fucks.” it’s more of a free-for-all among those players for how they might get to the next level, or be passed by by others who climb while they stagnate. 0.001% of 8 billion, or even 350 million, is still a LOT of people.
The LLM craze is a natural maturation point of the AI field though, and now it’s expanded into foundational models (FM) which you would still probably just call LLMs because most people don’t know the differences. FMs are getting close to that point of a magical universal computer that you can tell it to do anything about anything and it just works. There are specific FM applications like FMs for earth science or remote sensing (which I work in), but the big money coming from this technofascist elite is pushing for FMs for everything along with Agentic AI, which is the ultimate state to replace pesky human workers overall. They seek the ultimate triumph of Capital over Labor.
There are competing incentives driving the industry, but by far the strongest one is coming from who has the most money, and those who have the most money are the worst possible people that should have no say in how anything works. Scary times we’re in.
The LLM craze is a natural maturation point of the AI field
I don’t see why that is. Using ML to generate models that accurately perform specific tasks is orders of magnitude away from attempting to feed the entirety of human text into ML and expecting superhuman intelligence to emerge.
now it’s expanded into foundational models (FM) which you would still probably just call LLMs because most people don’t know the differences.
While ML and “AI” is not my field, I’m fairly certain that what I was attempting to describe in layman’s terms in my literal first sentence were these foundational models you are referring to.
FMs are getting close to that point of a magical universal computer that you can tell it to do anything about anything and it just works.
I have no direct experience outside of LLMs and I don’t really take issue with what I understand FMs to be, so long as they keep their scope narrow and focus on accurating completing specific tasks to assist humans. As soon as we hand off control and trust it blindly without extensive trials ensuring it’s reliability and failsafes in place to ensure inaccuracies are caught I start raising concerns.
My only experience is with LLMs - a few, minor attempts to “test the waters” of the major, publicly available LLM models. I’ve been frustrated with my search results and glanced at the AI results. Work gave us Gemini licenses and I used it in similar, desperate situatiuons for coding help and help with Google products foolishly thinking that if any LLM designed to help with such tasks would be passably useful it would be the LLM of the company that owns the products I seek help with. Unless something has changed drastically in the last month or so, every interaction has been a roll of the dice to such an extent that my occasional “testing the waters” caused me to jump out and avoid it as much as possible. I simply can’t trust it to not halucinate and gaslight me.
What I see as the problem is moving way, way, way too quickly in trusting language models to do anything even remotely important. Human communication is extremely nuanced, complicated, fluid, and imperfect. Humans misunderstand each other during communication even when we have the context of in-person visual/audible cues and interpersonal history.
The lack of regulation of AI is absolutely a serious problem, there are so many problems your comment isn’t even funny.
Problems with people using it for health advice.
Problems with teens using it instead of friends.
Problems with AI giving absurdly incorrect advice to people in general, but also professionals like managers and CEO’s.
Problems with data-centers that host these AI systems require enormous amounts of power. So much researchers have shown these data centers are drying up vast areas around the centers.
The techno-fascists are in all sorts of business, that’s not special for AI. The problem is with AI the techno-fascists aren’t regulated in any way.
Neither how their data centers impact the environment and the electric grid, or how AI has actual bad effects for their customers, because there is no regulation on the use or supply of AI services.
100% agree with every point you made. Everything you’re saying is specific to this iteration of LLMs though. That’s just one tiny piece (well large in terms of public perception and capital acquisition but small in terms of the research space).
The problem is that it’s in the hands of psychotic technofascist greedy subhumans
gee maybe people like you shouldn’t have put those tools into the shitbag’s hands?
I remember a decade ago multiple movements to reign in AI before it became uncontrollable, and any chance of that is long fuckin gone. we’re gonna barrel forward heedless of the danger, because fuck you that guy wants profits and doesn’t care about humanity.
and people like you made the tools and gave it to 'em.
That seems terribly extreme. Its not like its a bomb that is obviously for blowing people up. Someone made something with some cool applications, then some guys with many times more money and resources than anyone should be allowed to have, took the idea and ran with it toward a bunch of psychotic ends.
The problem isn’t that people can use good things for bad purposes, nor is it the people that make or improve those things. The root cause is that western society is currently structured in a way that ends up rewarding certain types of madness, and the reward structure is set up such that individuals can get a vast undue amount of influence and power. Under these conditions, it is natural that even a tiny number of such individuals can overtake the system like a single cancer cell can eventually kill someone. All of these alarming things going on for over 60 years are symptoms of that societal illness. Please don’t blame scientists for sciencing.
I fucking work on climate models you jabroni. You have no idea about the industry or really anything other than what your most echochambered influencers tell you to think.
Doubtful. And you thought that AI would stay in modeling? You made them something dangerous, and you thought it wouldn’t be weaponized?
you fucking moron. you either made yourself their bitch, or were used as their bitch unknowingly. science is ashamed of idiots like you who enable the worst.
Almost all research sharing is done through open source. Of course there are specific agreements between two companies if they wish to collaborate on private products, but the vast majority is just sharing a code base on github, writing a paper, and letting others review and try it out.
It’s always been that way, it’s just that until now the general public could say “well at least they pay me.”
So ironically this rise in anxiety is itself being driven by self-interest. People were fine with those people being in charge as long as they got a comfortable lifestyle out of it. A pattern seen throughout history.
It’s not AI that’s the problem. AI is an amazingly powerful tool (I’m an AI researcher).
The problem is that it’s in the hands of psychotic technofascist greedy subhumans that want to destroy basically all of society so their stock can go up 0.001%. If we can cut out the source of the cancer, the body can begin to heal itself.
Is it? I keep hearing people keep parroting this but what big advancements have we made cause of AI?
As a developer, I keep hearing this but all I see is low quality software that is all smoke and mirrors. Pumping out low quality code at a high pace is worse than pumping out less but higher quality code.
Dude, ChatGPT just solved an Erdős problem a few days ago and Mythos is exploiting decade old undiscovered 0-days in OSes and capable of pivoting 0-day Firefox bugs into full blown root access.
Yeah, I get that the viral “how many 'r’s are in strawberry” stuff is funny, but the idea that historical issues with transformers is preventing them from accelerating peak capabilities way beyond what most experts thought was possible just years ago is borderline delusional.
The field is moving so fast at this point that if you are basing any sense of limitations on even ~2mo old sampling, your conclusions are likely out of date.
They aren’t a silver bullet for everything (yet) but how capable they are at the things transformers are starting to be specialized into is well past the avg practitioner.
I’ve been writing software for well over a decade and the modern agents do a better job than I would around 90% of the time. Yes, I’ll occasionally need to bring up issues with their work, but I’d say at this point around 50% of the times I think they made a mistake I was actually the one who was wrong.
This is only within around the last 3-4 months that it’s been like this.
Oh did it solve it? You didn’t really provide any sources so I had to look it up myself.
And in the example from 2 days ago, it just applied an existing formula in a different context.
Which is helpful for sure, but I wouldn’t say it solves it.
Literally name any single industry with anything, and AI has vastly pushed it forward. It’s way to big to type here. Just off the top of my head: climate, pharmaceutical, other biomedical stuff (neuroscience, genetics, medical advances in every possible body system), energy (that alone has THOUSANDS of huge advances), science in general (astrophysics, geophysics, chemistry, agriculture, I mean every single scientific field). I’m listing every field I can think of, because it’s that pervasive.
The most visible advances which is just in like business/productivity for the sake of making money, I’d argue is the least important. It’s most important for a capitalist society that values profit over all else, but that’s a recipe for collapse, which is where we’re quickly headed.
You’re getting a lot of downvotes - I think it might be helpful if you explain you are using a different sort of AI rather than LLMs or gen AI.
You think AI has made improvements to our climate???
Can’t believe I read this on lemmy
lol please, go research something before you make any claims on it. No I’m not talking about datacenters fucking over the water supply or using fossil fuels, that’s bad obviously. Literally right now go google “AI used in climate science”. Just go do it. You’ll learn.
Are we talking about machine learning which has been around for a decade or generative AI? People usually mean the latter. Machine learning isn’t what caused the AI craze.
I honestly am curious in how an LLM could improve the climate in anyway.
And imo leaving the datacenters out is kind of a bad faith argument, it’s the only reason why it’s everywhere. It wouldn’t be a problem if it was basically a new computation tool used by niche professions.
I know I’m being pedantic, but machine learning has been around for many decades
go google what I said
That is not how socializing on the internet works. You make the claim, you back it up or be discredited for inconsideration
🙄👍
It’s truly amazing that when an expert in the field says something, they still cover their eyes and ears and say you’re wrong, they’re always right.
If someone did this with any field, they’d be called willfully ignorant. But because you work in Current Thing, you’re now against them, for being honest with the reality of your job.
Bet these are the same people who think they’re the rational ones and everyone else is a fool or paid actors.
Right! If you don’t count the mass surveillance boost, the autonomous killing machines they’re trying to make, the environmental impact, the pillaging of our individual experiences, and the destruction of all our shared spaces online, AI is a pretty cool tool.
Narrator: actually, no it was not.
e.g. it still spreads misinformation.
Making no mistakes is a much higher standard than that which we hold to ourselves. Why are people moving the goalposts of intelligence or usefulness behind perfection?
Bc when I use a calculator, I actually DO expect literal perfection. And when I use google search, I expect it to be “useful”. And when I find information in Wikipedia, I expect it to be somewhat authoritative, even if incomplete. And if I use automative driving features, I expect them not to completely take over the wheel and crash me into a brick wall… or to a little child in a crosswalk right in front of me.
People who drive drunk lose their privileges to drive anymore. Employees who screw up that often get fired. Doctors who dispense incorrect medical advice lose their ability to practice medicine, plus get exposed to lawsuits. Counselors who tell their patients to kill themselves… Anyway, people DO experience the consequences of their actions, like ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Whereas in contrast, AI is said that it is “going to be” great, not that it is great now. Fine, finish it and then we’ll talk. In the meantime, stop shoving it in front of my face.
If AI is like a human, it’s at best 2-year-old and at worst more like 6 months. It should not be “in charge”, e.g. of dispensing medical advice. But since it takes so much time to check its results for errors, it is literally slower and more painful to use it than to not use it (sometimes, often in fact).
You have a point somewhere buried in your mind, as revealed by the insightful first sentence, but your phrasing in the second sentence reads like sea-lioning and is not helping. Nobody is asking for “behind perfection” as that is literally mathematically impossible, and that is not what “moving the goalposts” means. It should not be enough to sound intelligent - we need to actually be such (same for AI as well).
And you have calulators.
And Google search has been spotty since the beginning.
And Wikipedia article quality … varies.
Like people, if you give AI a sufficiently complex problem, it won’t get it 100% right on the first pass. But, if you give it enough detail to distinguish an acceptable solution from an unacceptable one, it might get 80% of what you’re looking for on the first pass, boost that to 96% on the 2nd pass, 99% on the 3rd pass, and eventually what’s left is simple enough that it finally does get it 100% right.
Anybody who accepts the first thing AI tells them with today’s tech, is using it wrong.
Your “if” there is doing an awfully lot of the heavy lifting. Fwiw, I’m not talking special-purpose, custom-built LLMs - a large part of the problem is the lack of precision language uses to describe the concepts under discussion.
An example: https://lemmy.world/post/46390157
Another example: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/59584533
Both of these would be better called “cheating” than “AI”, but seeing as how AI both makes it easier and more to the point so many companies (such as Oracle) are literally pushing their programmers (those remaining anyway) to exclusively write programs using AI rather than by themselves, the very definition of “cheating” will need to be reexamined as a result.
In the examples also take note of how poor quality the LLM output is - e.g. regardless of whether the source is Grok or Claude or whatever, those therapy examples are not helpful in the slightest. Your counterargument might be that these are the “cheap” (aka free) AIs, but preemptively I will say in response: they still count as “AI”, especially in the context of the OP.
As far as “cheating” goes, ever since I got out of the game of paying a bunch of academics to judge and label me, I have been actively encouraged to “cheat” by the people who pay me money… that’s real life.
If you’re using a Ginsu knife to knead dough, you might not have optimal results. Claude is pretty good at code, since about 4-6 months ago. Grok? last time I asked Grok for anything it was the fastest LLM on the market, and the most non-sensical - usless trash.
(I did not downvote you btw)
Okay but Grok is still surely part of the “Anxiety around AI is growing rapidly in the US, research shows” phenomena, as Grok is one of the various AIs that people are aware of, and anxious about.
Your words read to me like you have kept yourself aware of the positive benefits of using AI - which many people on Lemmy including to some degree myself - have done far less of.
But there are some negatives as well…
Technology up to the dawn of the AI slop era was indeed expected to be perfect. When it wasn’t, we fixed it so it would be.
Why should AI be exempt from this? Techbros have convinced you that it should be so that their favourite lines go up.
There’s literally nothing more to it. A hammer is useless if it only drives 50% of the nails you hit with it. Why the fuck should we expect anything less than triple or quad 9 accuracy from AI if its so god damned “intelligent”?
B-b-be-be-because shut up you, that’s why!
Won’t someone think of the poor shareholders?
(/s)
All of that is because the incentives are coming from those with the most power/money who are the most psychotic cancer cells in the history of the world. You’re only aware of such a tiny sliver of it because that’s the most problematic and gets the most news. Those are all huge problems that need to be solved, but the cause isn’t AI. AI is just an accelerant for a sick hypercapitalist society that is doomed to collapse. AI itself has been used for millions of great things that improve all of life on earth, but in the hands of these psychopaths it’s just being used for the ultimate triumph of Capital over Labor, at the expense of literally everything else on earth.
I had, like, a bunch of paragraphs lined up because I thought you didn’t understand this. But as it turns out, you seem to be perfectly okay with the world being raped to death.
I hope your academic field is entertaining, at least.
…I work in earth science…
I know. I am perfectly capable of reading more than one comment.
zd9, you are aware that AI is making things worse, you say so yourself, and yet you feel the unsatable need to stand here bitching that no one understands your unique, special use case. For what?
I. Do. Not. Give. A. Fuck. that academics are using machine learning to solve problems. That is their business. <- Is that what you wanted? There you go.
So do you feel this hatred towards Monte Carlo sampling methods, or Gaussian Mixture Models, or Finite Element Method solvers? It’s all just math and it is being applied towards both how to grow crops better and how to make bombs. Seems pretty naive.
You know what all those methods have in common? FUCKING evaluation of smooth continuous functions based on a limited number of samples.
REAL MEN WRITE REAL PROOFS. They don’t use God damned computational methods which completely IGNORE non-converging regions.
I used opus to generate this lean-verifiable proof that you in particular are full of shit!
import Mathlib open Real noncomputable def f (x : ℝ) : ℝ := sin (π * x) * exp (-x^2) lemma f_smooth : ContDiff ℝ ⊤ f := (contDiff_sin.comp (contDiff_const.mul contDiff_id)).mul (contDiff_exp.comp (contDiff_id.pow 2).neg) lemma f_zero_on_ints : ∀ n : ℤ, f n = 0 := by intro n show sin (π * (n : ℝ)) * exp (-((n : ℝ))^2) = 0 rw [mul_comm π (n : ℝ), sin_int_mul_pi, zero_mul] lemma f_ne_zero : f ≠ 0 := fun h => by have h₁ : f (1/2) = 0 := congrFun h (1/2) have h₂ : f (1/2) = exp (-(1/2)^2) := by show sin (π * (1/2)) * exp (-(1/2)^2) = exp (-(1/2)^2) rw [show π * (1/2) = π/2 from by ring, sin_pi_div_two, one_mul] exact (exp_pos _).ne' (h₂ ▸ h₁) theorem sampling_is_a_lie : ∃ f : ℝ → ℝ, ContDiff ℝ ⊤ f ∧ (∀ n : ℤ, f n = 0) ∧ f ≠ 0 := ⟨f, f_smooth, f_zero_on_ints, f_ne_zero⟩All those things being true is enough for me to hate AI.
Edit: As my dad says, One aw shit wipes away a million attaboys.
Do you hate the concept of iron alloy? Because it was used for hundreds of years in swords and weapons to kill millions of people. See how silly that sounds?
Iron alloy doesn’t convince people they shouldn’t have their noose visible in case someone might see it and intervene. You’re not going to change my mind. Once the bubble is popped and all our lives get worse and 3 people control all the technology it’s not going to matter that it saves people time, or it creates efficiency.
You’re not um… you’re not even reading, but ok. Keep living in your echochamber I guess.
Just because you don’t like my points doesn’t mean I’m arguing in bad faith, and I find it a little insulting that you’re trying to dodge instead of responding to my point by insinuating I am.
No I’m saying you’re not even trying to understand, you’re just saying you don’t like it no matter what. To that I said, ok keep living in your echochamber. I’m not saying that’s bad faith, it’s just not trying to reach truth.
Electricity -> electrocutions
Gasoline -> fire bombs
Axes -> axe murders
we really need to get back to throwing rocks at each other, it’s much less environmentally impactful and puts us on a much more level playing field, only the rich control all these techno-marvels.
If you have anything else to add besides hyperbole now is the time. Otherwise I think we’re done here.
I want to agree with you, but AI is just another psychopath in a world where we don’t need any more psychopaths.
I was excited about the idea of purpose-built systems trained on specific datasets to be help find complex patterns to diagnose diseases or suggest potential molecules for specific purposes.
Then the LLM shit started and everyone started fantasizing about intelligent “AI” just because it was able to reproduce patterns of language that seem relevant to a given input. Some of those funding it kept chasing that dream and are convinced that, if they just throw more compute at the problem, they can evolve the renaissance AGI that can do anything. Then they can fire every worker and be bazillionaires with robot slaves and never have to work another day of their lives… and fuck everyone and everything else.
It’s amazing what we can ruin when we let greed and selfishness drive our society.
At 1million i could already stop working and live decent life :/. I really don’t get why past 1billion they continue to search for more
They actually have a disorder or disease. However in this case their disorder is destroying the rest of the world. There’s a fast approaching point that the world organism will self-heal to prevent its own death.
It’s a sickness
Maybe it’s because I’ve only ever had at most a comfortable income but I truly don’t understand the mentality of needing so much money.
I don’t get paid as much as my peers but I make enough to be comfortable. I am my own department and, aside from emergencies and other high priority situations, I manage myself and choose what to work on when. I have a decent work life balance. Because I make enough to be comfortable (in large part because my landlord promised not to raise our rent - early in the COVID lockdown - if we were “good tenants” and has managed to keep true to her word) I don’t feel the need for more. That balance is worth not making the 20% more a year I might get somewhere else because I can’t guarantee I won’t have a shitty boss that doesn’t let me have that work/life balance.
They’ve been fantasizing about that ever since “computers” started growing in accessibility - in the 1960s…
The current crop is just the first time such things have been delivered with something resembling “average” human responses.
Fantasizing wasn’t the best choice of words - I often understate what I mean to communicate at an attempt at humor. I should have said "everyone started
fantasizingbecoming so obsessed with intelligent “AI” that they’re willing to dump a significant portion of the world’s resources just because… "That’s more or less what I meant by “patterns of language that seem relevant to a given input”. I was attempting to understate this in order to exaggerate the villainous eagerness and stupidity of greedy, rich fucks.
The late 90s .com bubble was very eye opening for me.
Top 1% (and up) wealthy people I have known often think in terms of “getting to the next level” - and no matter where you are, there’s always a next level. Even the wealthiest people in the world aren’t the most powerful in various circles, the most popular, the most well liked, the most beautiful… there’s always that next unattainable step to vie for.
When there’s a chaotic upheval, like .com, or AI, that’s opportunity to reposition - and as many of these people are older, YOLO - they’ll put significant capital at risk to try - especially those wealthy enough to make siginificant plays with less than 10% or less than 1% of their current net worth…
During .com, starting programmers’ salaries doubled within less than a year - pretty much directly as a result of this opening of the powerful people’s wealth hoardes putting them in competition with each other to hire everyone they could who could help them try to capitalize “on that .com stuff.”
We were “seeking investment” before .com hit, after it hit investment was seeking us: satellite calls with guys from their yachts in the South Pacific… wild times.
Once you hit the 0.01% most wealthy, it’s beyond “villainous eagerness and stupidity of greedy, rich fucks.” it’s more of a free-for-all among those players for how they might get to the next level, or be passed by by others who climb while they stagnate. 0.001% of 8 billion, or even 350 million, is still a LOT of people.
The LLM craze is a natural maturation point of the AI field though, and now it’s expanded into foundational models (FM) which you would still probably just call LLMs because most people don’t know the differences. FMs are getting close to that point of a magical universal computer that you can tell it to do anything about anything and it just works. There are specific FM applications like FMs for earth science or remote sensing (which I work in), but the big money coming from this technofascist elite is pushing for FMs for everything along with Agentic AI, which is the ultimate state to replace pesky human workers overall. They seek the ultimate triumph of Capital over Labor.
There are competing incentives driving the industry, but by far the strongest one is coming from who has the most money, and those who have the most money are the worst possible people that should have no say in how anything works. Scary times we’re in.
I don’t see why that is. Using ML to generate models that accurately perform specific tasks is orders of magnitude away from attempting to feed the entirety of human text into ML and expecting superhuman intelligence to emerge.
While ML and “AI” is not my field, I’m fairly certain that what I was attempting to describe in layman’s terms in my literal first sentence were these foundational models you are referring to.
I have no direct experience outside of LLMs and I don’t really take issue with what I understand FMs to be, so long as they keep their scope narrow and focus on accurating completing specific tasks to assist humans. As soon as we hand off control and trust it blindly without extensive trials ensuring it’s reliability and failsafes in place to ensure inaccuracies are caught I start raising concerns.
My only experience is with LLMs - a few, minor attempts to “test the waters” of the major, publicly available LLM models. I’ve been frustrated with my search results and glanced at the AI results. Work gave us Gemini licenses and I used it in similar, desperate situatiuons for coding help and help with Google products foolishly thinking that if any LLM designed to help with such tasks would be passably useful it would be the LLM of the company that owns the products I seek help with. Unless something has changed drastically in the last month or so, every interaction has been a roll of the dice to such an extent that my occasional “testing the waters” caused me to jump out and avoid it as much as possible. I simply can’t trust it to not halucinate and gaslight me.
What I see as the problem is moving way, way, way too quickly in trusting language models to do anything even remotely important. Human communication is extremely nuanced, complicated, fluid, and imperfect. Humans misunderstand each other during communication even when we have the context of in-person visual/audible cues and interpersonal history.
It’s cute that you think you’re somehow different
aww thanks!
The lack of regulation of AI is absolutely a serious problem, there are so many problems your comment isn’t even funny.
Problems with people using it for health advice.
Problems with teens using it instead of friends.
Problems with AI giving absurdly incorrect advice to people in general, but also professionals like managers and CEO’s.
Problems with data-centers that host these AI systems require enormous amounts of power. So much researchers have shown these data centers are drying up vast areas around the centers.
The techno-fascists are in all sorts of business, that’s not special for AI. The problem is with AI the techno-fascists aren’t regulated in any way.
Neither how their data centers impact the environment and the electric grid, or how AI has actual bad effects for their customers, because there is no regulation on the use or supply of AI services.
100% agree with every point you made. Everything you’re saying is specific to this iteration of LLMs though. That’s just one tiny piece (well large in terms of public perception and capital acquisition but small in terms of the research space).
gee maybe people like you shouldn’t have put those tools into the shitbag’s hands?
I remember a decade ago multiple movements to reign in AI before it became uncontrollable, and any chance of that is long fuckin gone. we’re gonna barrel forward heedless of the danger, because fuck you that guy wants profits and doesn’t care about humanity.
and people like you made the tools and gave it to 'em.
That seems terribly extreme. Its not like its a bomb that is obviously for blowing people up. Someone made something with some cool applications, then some guys with many times more money and resources than anyone should be allowed to have, took the idea and ran with it toward a bunch of psychotic ends.
The problem isn’t that people can use good things for bad purposes, nor is it the people that make or improve those things. The root cause is that western society is currently structured in a way that ends up rewarding certain types of madness, and the reward structure is set up such that individuals can get a vast undue amount of influence and power. Under these conditions, it is natural that even a tiny number of such individuals can overtake the system like a single cancer cell can eventually kill someone. All of these alarming things going on for over 60 years are symptoms of that societal illness. Please don’t blame scientists for sciencing.
bingo
I fucking work on climate models you jabroni. You have no idea about the industry or really anything other than what your most echochambered influencers tell you to think.
Doubtful. And you thought that AI would stay in modeling? You made them something dangerous, and you thought it wouldn’t be weaponized?
you fucking moron. you either made yourself their bitch, or were used as their bitch unknowingly. science is ashamed of idiots like you who enable the worst.
deleted by creator
that’s why you see lots of chemical and biowarfare?
or continued CFC use huh?
you simpering dolt.
lol thanks for the chuckle. Go outside for a bit.
enjoy your vibe coding clanker
-is an AI researcher -immediately uses Nazi lingo after introducing themselves
you can’t be more obvious than this about the ideology of AI💀
lol get offline a bit, not everything is Nazi everything. You’re saying “subhuman” is Nazi coded?
I believe Peter Thiel, Musk, Andreeson, Horowitz, Yarvin, and about 100 others who are actively trying to erode our society to the point of collapse, so they can rise as god-kings from the ashes, need to not exist in our free society. They have broken the inherent social contract and have therefore lost the privilege.
Indeed.
To cut off their data and revenue streams, stick to Open Source, locally run, models/chatbots.
Almost all research sharing is done through open source. Of course there are specific agreements between two companies if they wish to collaborate on private products, but the vast majority is just sharing a code base on github, writing a paper, and letting others review and try it out.
It’s amazing how open source has benefitted the individual. The monopolization of compute is still a barrier we’ll have to crash through
It’s always been that way, it’s just that until now the general public could say “well at least they pay me.”
So ironically this rise in anxiety is itself being driven by self-interest. People were fine with those people being in charge as long as they got a comfortable lifestyle out of it. A pattern seen throughout history.