161–170 of 177 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. Also ML is called AI now too at least as far as hiring managers are concerned. Adjust your resume accordingly.
ML is, obviously, AI. But not all AI is ML. The reason the term "machine learning" was even invented was because it was one of the AI winters and an euphemism was needed because "AI" was more of a swearword than a buzzword.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When you ask a question expecting a certain outcome, you are obviously not very curious about the answer. That's an absurd take imo. So you fall into bucket #1. More generally that AI isn't useful. At least not useful enough to invest time or money in. Which kindof shows that my question was reasonable. Multiple people on this thread have answered differently. But still a lot of hostility and anti-tech sentiment.
> So you fall into bucket #1. More generally that AI isn't useful. At least not useful enough to invest time or money in. Wrong. That's what you wanted to read. As I was saying you are not interested in my opinion, only on the answer you already presume. I think AI is moderately useful, although clearly not as useful as it is hyped to be. The amount of money poured into AI makes no sense not because it has no value,…
Check yourself maybe. I'm generalizing what you said to fall into one of my own two buckets, because you said the investment will never see an adequate return..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you fall into bucket #1. More generally that AI isn't useful. At least not useful enough to invest time or money in. Wrong. That's what you wanted to read. As I was saying you are not interested in my opinion, only on the answer you already presume. I think AI is moderately useful, although clearly not as useful as it is hyped to be. The amount of money poured into AI makes no sense not because it has no value,…
> Wrong. That's what you wanted to read. Check yourself maybe. I'm generalizing what you said to fall into one of my own two buckets, because you said the investment will never see an adequate return. .
You want the answers you get to fit your established worldview, you were never interested in engaging with it critically.
And here we are. I explained quite throughly my point of view, and still you reach the same unsuitable conclusion, proving the initial point.
This conversation has reached its conclusion. Have a wonderful day.
I hope these companies aren't in for a shock when the younger generation rejects their brands https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/920401/g... If negative perception towards AI grows, either because of negative experiences after having it forced on them, or as people's utility bills skyrocket, or as the environmental impact becomes more apparent, they might find that what appeals to shareholders doesn'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But I suspect it's a front because the posters don't want to admit #2. Hence my question. And that's why you're getting reflexively downvoted. Because we can already tell by the way you telegraphed the question you aren't worth wasting time on. As it turns out, some of us don't think our youth shouldn't be able to have the same opportunities we did because a bunch of techies got the financial sector to go all in on…
Fine you're in bucket #2. Interesting how those who are united against AI have diverse reasons. > Because we can already tell by the way you telegraphed the question you aren't worth wasting time on. Nobody asked me before accusing me of bad intentions like you did, but I'll say anyway: I think using technology to reduce human effort is entirely the point. I believe our economy needs to adapt to advancement, not the…
I won't abuse humanity. Nor will I enable those who ultimately intend to do so using my work as a proxy. Maybe you should consider doing the same. You might learn something by stepping out of the bubble about all the problems you're creating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fine you're in bucket #2. Interesting how those who are united against AI have diverse reasons. > Because we can already tell by the way you telegraphed the question you aren't worth wasting time on. Nobody asked me before accusing me of bad intentions like you did, but I'll say anyway: I think using technology to reduce human effort is entirely the point. I believe our economy needs to adapt to advancement, not the…
You can bucket me wherever you want hombre. Whatever makes you feel better. I walked away from tech voluntarily because I refuse to associate with or put my time toward a morally bankrupt industry, even if it is where my talents happen to align. I'm more than happy to be a subsistence humanitarian even if it requires me to sacrifice the gilt and opulence that comes with a tech salary. I won't abuse humanity. Nor will…
Well I really hope you put your money where your mouth. That means: Never use AI (obviously). Never look up how to plant carrots on YouTube. Don't learn to play an instrument or paint. Anything that exploits public information and steals knowledge without compensation, like AI does, is off limits.
Otherwise you'd be an incredible hypoctrite. Especially since you've already extracted your share of wealth from tech before you saw the light and converted to ludditism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wrong. That's what you wanted to read. Check yourself maybe. I'm generalizing what you said to fall into one of my own two buckets, because you said the investment will never see an adequate return. .
> I'm generalizing what you said to fall into one of my own two buckets You want the answers you get to fit your established worldview, you were never interested in engaging with it critically. And here we are. I explained quite throughly my point of view, and still you reach the same unsuitable conclusion, proving the initial point. This conversation has reached its conclusion. Have a wonderful day.
- "A ridiculous waste of resources sucking up all the oxygen in the room."
- "I am also not at all afraid of losing my job to AI"
- "I seriously doubt the competence and experience of anyone afraid of it."
- " think agents can do my job"
- "humongous amount of money burned in the AI pit"
My conclusion from that is that you think AI is bad because it's not useful [to be worth the cost] (bucket #1) and not because you're afraid of losing your job (bucket #2).
I think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw?
But you obviously disagree and found my conclusion so offensive you decided to attack my intentions, as if you know what I'm thinking better than I do.
2 yrs ago I saw some company raise a million dollars by saying they used AI, when what they did could easily be done with an algorithm. Many things can be algorithms, regex filters, logic or heuristics (spam detection is an example) but nowadays people want the llm to do it first, without even thinking.
I've been rejecting pitch decks like that for 2 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm generalizing what you said to fall into one of my own two buckets You want the answers you get to fit your established worldview, you were never interested in engaging with it critically. And here we are. I explained quite throughly my point of view, and still you reach the same unsuitable conclusion, proving the initial point. This conversation has reached its conclusion. Have a wonderful day.
I'd love to hear how I misinterpreted your words about AI. Just to remind you: - "A ridiculous waste of resources sucking up all the oxygen in the room." - "I am also not at all afraid of losing my job to AI" - "I seriously doubt the competence and experience of anyone afraid of it." - " think agents can do my job" - "humongous amount of money burned in the AI pit" My conclusion from that is that you think AI is bad…
All facts below are true in regards on how I think of AI
- AI is useful. I use it daily. In some tasks it speeds me up greatly, in other tasks not so much. I don't question that it is useful, although I do disagree on how much AI maximalists overhype it.
- I think AI is a technology deadend. Due to limitations inherent to how LLMs work, they cannot achieve what the people selling AI claim it can do. Or at least multiple unprecedented technological revolutions would be needed for it to happen.
- AI is hellishly expensive. All companies building it are bleeding an insane amount of money in a reckless manner. At some point, the bill will have to be paid. I am concerned about this in terms of employability - I suspect a major economic downturn is brewing in the horizon, and how companies are burning money in AI will compound on it.
- Perhaps naively, I think that this technology should be built up and incorporated responsibly, instead of this FOMO-fueled "winner takes all" mentality. I recognize that the system we live in has all the wrong incentives however.
I very much disagree my opinions fit neatly in between the categories you defined.
And this brings me back to my original point: You asked your questions presuming the answers. It's not a matter of knowing what you think better than you do, it is a matter of getting the things you declared and deriving your intentions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, that’s not exactly a new thing, it’s just sensitive to the exact phase of the Great AI Freeze/Thaw Cycle. A lot of now-ordinary automation used to be "AI" until it become commonplace and no longer buzzword-worthy and thus no longer regarded as "AI", and/or an AI winter hit. Last time that AI was big before DL it was the "big data" fad and everything had to be big data. Marketing has never not been about h…
It doesn't make sense though. If a company builds automation and I need a company to build automation for me, that's good to market yourself that way. If a company says "we build automation using AI", ehh, I'd probably cut out the middleman and use AI myself... This is different from marketing around the cloud or big data.