Live data from Hacker News

Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

techcrunch.com

451–460 of 521 posts

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#451
post #56

Because the writing is on the wall already. Who hasn't been annoyed with "AI customer service", we already read about AI in the military, then you have the envisioned huge loss of jobs. People generally seem to like using it as a chatbot, or answer questions, on their own terms. But anywhere it's been forced against the user asking for it has been a disaster.

Very true. I work for an AI company, I use it every day, it's a huge value add for certain problems. My heat pump died the other day and I called an HVAC place and got an AI agent, which was frustrating and not helpful. So I called a different HVAC place and spoke to someone who could actually help, then I gave them lots of money.

Similarly, I'm a grad school student studying AI (well, computer vision). When I called my internet provider to complain and ask for maintenance (a fool with a tall truck ran on our street and tore some of the cables) I could only get annoying AIs to talk with me. They kept arguing that my service was working properly despite the snapped cables. I reckon that the AI assistants were hallucinating the answer to a ping or something like that. I found another provider who actually gave me the option to talk with an actual human being and switched in the same day.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#452
post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You only need one statistic to understand America today, that working class Americans without college degrees have had their purchasing power stagnate since the 1970s( https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ ) Having a college degree was a much more selective measure in 1970 (about 10% of the population) than today (almost 40%). Consider a large law firm. In 1970, the only 4-year degree holders wo…

Look at the macro data. The overall median wage for all American workers combined has also drastically lagged behind economic productivity since the 70s.

It doesn’t make sense to talk about “economic productivity” as a single number. Productivity growth has been massively different for different jobs. For example, there has been zero productivity growth in food service from 1970 to present. So you’d need to look at wages by sector compared to productivity growth in that sector.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#453
post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicely done subtly shifting the conversation from wealth to income. I guess it shouldn't matter that the bottom 90% of Americans have seen their share of wealth decrease since that started being measured in 1989. The median worker should be thrilled as long as their real wages have increased. Who cares if inflation numbers fail to account properly for more nuanced changes to cost of living such as rising education co…

>Nicely done subtly shifting the conversation from wealth to income. I don't see the data on absolute wealth in your link, so I went with what I had. >I guess it shouldn't matter that the bottom 90% of Americans have seen their share of wealth decrease since that started being measured in 1989. The median worker should be thrilled as long as their real wages have increased. Well... yes? I mean, should I care that the…

The conversation started with the question of who captures the wealth generated from this new tech. I pointed to numbers that show the ultra-wealthy have captured almost all the new wealth generated in the last 50 years.

The page I linked also having income numbers does not mean I agree they are a good analog for were this value is captured. I don't believe income increasing at slightly under 1% a year actually indicates that "Most everyone is living better" today for the reasons mentioned above. You're free to offer counter evidence and I don't know why you're acting like you were limited to only referencing the source I provided.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm speaking to whoever wants to listen. Advice is a gift that you are free to refuse.

you miss my point entirely. People are a product of their environment. Just because YOU or I don't fall down this trap doesn't mean our friends or family or people in our communities won't. In my country we charge sales tax on processed foods but not on fresh foods. It's because we can make the good choice easier and the bad choice harder. We shouldn't be doing the opposite, then laying all the responsibility on indi…

Maturity is understanding that no matter who is to blame for the situation you are in or the problems you have, you as an individual are most of the time the only one who can fix your problems. Nothing is more effective than a determined person. And nobody knows you better than yourself.

Unless you think you can change the entire universe to do your bidding - then the best thing you can do is helping yourself and helping others. Nobody is helped by complaining. And I'm not missing your point, I just don't share your perspective.

People who want to be mislead will always find a way to be mislead, because they want somebody else to be blamed and "responsible" for their life and their mistakes. Failing to realize that it is always themselves in the end who pay the price and bear the burden. That's how they have been bred on this earth. "At least it was not my fault" feels perfectly good in the soul of many suffering people, because they have been raised within a guilt or shame culture. And there are plenty of unethical people willing to indulge them in this falsehood.

That's why I'm saying to seek out what is good instead of what is evil. And help those who want to be helped.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#455
post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nicely done subtly shifting the conversation from wealth to income. I don't see the data on absolute wealth in your link, so I went with what I had. >I guess it shouldn't matter that the bottom 90% of Americans have seen their share of wealth decrease since that started being measured in 1989. The median worker should be thrilled as long as their real wages have increased. Well... yes? I mean, should I care that the…

The conversation started with the question of who captures the wealth generated from this new tech. I pointed to numbers that show the ultra-wealthy have captured almost all the new wealth generated in the last 50 years. The page I linked also having income numbers does not mean I agree they are a good analog for were this value is captured. I don't believe income increasing at slightly under 1% a year actually indic…

>The conversation started with the question of who captures the wealth generated from this new tech.

Regardless of how the conversation started, the statement I questioned, and which you chose to defend, was

>I'm skeptical of the idea that the financial wellbeing of the average American has been improved by computers.

I won't simply grant that relative wealth is equivalent to absolute wealth. That's like saying that if you have a dollar in each pocket, putting another dollar in your right pocket makes your left pocket poorer. No. Maybe it's really true that the rich have captured the productivity gained from personal computing. I don't know. But what you said was that you don't think personal computing has contributed to the financial wellbeing of Americans, on average. Even if you had data showing that most households are financially the same or worse since the dawn of personal computing, I don't know you would get from there to attributing it to personal computers (beyond post hoc ergo propter hoc, which I don't need to say is rather flimsy).

>You're free to offer counter evidence and I don't know why you're acting like you were limited to only referencing the source I provided.

I appreciate the offer to do work for no reason, but I'm fine, thanks. Why would I need to present any evidence to refute you when the evidence you presented doesn't back you up?

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, why not make up a bunch of lies?

Or why not make an actual plan to improve things and solve problems instead of throwing in the towel before you even start? It also doesn't help to be a prosecuting attorney that extorted poor people for judicial profit. Only the wealthy view prosecutors as good people.

What has Trump done that makes a meaningful positive difference in the lives of people making less than $250k/year?

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#457
post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conversation started with the question of who captures the wealth generated from this new tech. I pointed to numbers that show the ultra-wealthy have captured almost all the new wealth generated in the last 50 years. The page I linked also having income numbers does not mean I agree they are a good analog for were this value is captured. I don't believe income increasing at slightly under 1% a year actually indic…

>The conversation started with the question of who captures the wealth generated from this new tech. Regardless of how the conversation started, the statement I questioned, and which you chose to defend, was >I'm skeptical of the idea that the financial wellbeing of the average American has been improved by computers. I won't simply grant that relative wealth is equivalent to absolute wealth. That's like saying that…

>Maybe it's really true that the rich have captured the productivity gained from personal computing. I don't know.

Well, we'll leave it there then. I don't know why you felt the need to debate a point you admit to not having any actual insight about, but I'm going to stop entertaining your devil's advocacy.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#458
post #135
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The only hope we have is that they're wrong, and their power to change things will be minimal. What even is the optimistic outcome if they are right? What are we all working towards? Like do people think that these AI companies will create some superintelligence, suck up all the financial benefits of that, and then just decide to share it with the rest of us out of kindness? Because I legitimately can't see a realis…

I'm legit pretty excited about applying AI to accelerate biological and medical discovery. It's already happening right now, still in relatively mundane ways, but there's so much to do.

I don’t understand this logic, what would LLMs do here? Is thinking the bottleneck, or money to go and test all the ideas people have already thought of? Are we really missing the cure for cancer because we just haven’t thought about it enough and letting an LLM churn on all the data will figure it out? All the research is probably in its training set already, so why hasn’t it come up with the cure?

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#459
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is the vast majority has never given a shit about authenticity though. All of the top pop stars are performing music made by committees and designed by marketing teams. Most music sold is and has been lowest common denominator trash since TV was invented. It's hilarious to see some Katy Perry fan frothing at the mouth about AI not being authentic art. As if they ever cared. Most mainstream entertainment is…

I think it's a sliding scale. I love a well cooked meal and would never eat McDonalds, but I could see how someone who does eat at McDonalds wouldn't want to live off Soylent. Maybe a better way to put it is that Katy Perry is on the right side of the uncanny valley.

Yeah but it's a sliding scale where average food is a 5 out of 10, McDonald's is a 1, and soylent is 0.5. It's nonsensical.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#460
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An optimistic view is that the jobs displaced by AI will be like the jobs displaced by industrialization: while fewer people will be needed to do the task, there will be more demand for the task over time, opening up new jobs with different skill sets than the previous job required. At least one data point in favor of this view is the middling success of the AI rollout so far. Of course it’s eclipsed in the short run…

> An optimistic view is that the jobs displaced by AI will be like the jobs displaced by industrialization: while fewer people will be needed to do the task, there will be more demand for the task over time, opening up new jobs with different skill sets than the previous job required. At this point, it's condescending to keep rehashing the "this is just the next industrialization era". It's been beaten to death as an…

I’d love to read why it’s a wrong comparison.
Post reply on HN