most readers seem to conclude that the ai industry should have done better marketing when the truth is that they believed they wouldn't even have to consider the public opinion because of how powerful their technology is.
The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
271–280 of 399 posts
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#272I feel like their are (at least) three main critiques of AI, and I wish we could debate them separately, because I think they each have different resolutions. The first is the fear of job loss, and I feel like this is the most straightforward to deal with. Personally, I think the solution should be to share the productivity of AI with society at large, in particular since AI owes most of its abilities to training on…
I think you may be going too far, as in your critiques assume the tech is further along than it actually is. There are three fundamental problems for mass AI adoption/AGI: 1. Lack of memory/continuity 2. Lack of agency 3. Lack of self-awareness Based on my understanding of the basic 'loop' of an LLM, solutions for these may be decades off or not possible. Which leads me to the fourth problem: 4. Lack of compute To ge…
I think people really confuse their imagination and expectations with reality. There's so much talk about AGI and mass layoffs. Then there is my experience.
I was talking to Claude and ChatGPT, trying to fix an issue with a simple function in Rust, which is returning a boolean depending on day of week and time of day. The logic looked ok to me, but tests were failing. Notably, my real world data derived tests were succeeding, while brute-force/comprehensive tests written by Claude were failing. I wanted those "just to be sure". Both Claude and ChatGPT were spinning their wheels, introducing fixes, then undoing prior fixes, so on and so forth. They also updated tests. We were going from one failure to another, while they confidently reassured me that "this is the fix", they found the "crucial bug" etc. etc.
Turned out my logic was correct from the beginning. My tests were correct. Claude's tests were broken. I realized this by writing my own brute force test. Just a simple loop with asserts and printlns to see what is failing. I did what the machine was supposed to do for me. In less than 5 minutes I fine tuned the test to actually check what it was supposed to be checking and voila. The "fast" thinking machine episode took me 2 hours and only produced frustration. Sorry I should learn to speak the language - AI reduced my development velocity :)
The only poverty I see coming is from collapse of quality after these dumb machines are used to replace people, who actually know what they are doing.
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Have you lived on 12k? 24k puts you near poverty level. $1k per month will cover food expenses, it won't cover transport, shelter, and certainly not medical. On 12k per year you have enough money for food and praying that an emergency doesn't happen. It's hard enough living on 40k, and I'm not even in a place where costs are expensive.
[flagged]
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you lost your $60,000 a year job due to this, do you really believe a basic income funded by it will make up that loss? It won't. Basic income in the US is usually proposed at $12k per year, which would add another $3 trillion to the budget. Do you think you can even get that just taxing these companies? I don't. People who bring up basic income need to get serious about the numbers involved because I never see it…
If companies are faced with the choice between: - employ you at 60k/yr - replace you with a machine that costs a lot of money, and also send you UBI of 60k/yr It should be obvious the latter is not an option that is ever going to happen.
What if the machine in this context is 3x as productive as you?
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#275This was evident everywhere except within the AI industry itself. The rhetoric from many of the industry’s top leaders has been “this technology will eliminate millions of jobs, fundamentally reshape countless other jobs, and automate the use of lethal force, but we’re going to develop it anyways”. Many of the current economic woes, including mass layoffs, have been blamed on AI by the very executives conducting said…
Roy Sutherland has a really good take on AI. Most of the AI companies are targeting a cost cutting proposoition where they should target a value creation one. Targeting and pushing towards a regressive elimination route is tox and destructive to those around it. Then again the CEOs of these companies want to get their company at all cost to society.
So, at my BigCo, this rings very true.
We've tried to internally pitch many ideas to the larger organization before but mostly got nothing back.
Finally, one of the various board members talked to my boss and told them that, essentially, it has to be top line growth, not bottom line savings.
We looked this up and it came down to some MBA mumbo-jumbo about how X% of growth is better than that same X% of savings once you run the math (?). Look, I know, that's not how percentages work and I know that savings actually do matter. But in 'I have an MBA-land' the mantra is topline > bottomline.
So, then we started to pitch ideas around growth (new lines, more customer sales, more customers, etc). Which went ... nowhere ... again.
Time goes by again, and another helpful person reaches out and tells us that our ideas are 'not worth considering' as they 'don't meaningfully impact revenue targets'. Again, essentially, just to justify the salary-time that these internal boards spend, the idea has to be net positive. Then it we learned that, no, it has to impact the revenue to 1%. For our BigCo that in the ~$10M ballpark. We do have the customer base to support that, but it is in the revenue ballpark of Atari or the Hypixel servers.
Look, either way, the run-around that I get told is that for AI projects that we pitch internally: 1) Top line growth only 2) ~1% increase in revenue (~$10M).
Now, why anyone would not just go take that ~$10M idea and not just make a company themselves is beyond me, but I don't get paid the big bucks, so who knows.
Still, that is what these BigCos are looking for: Growth in the ~$1-10M range.
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sort of regulation do you think is needed for this?
I think frontier AI research should be outlawed until such time as there's a broad consensus on how society ought to deal with it. This would have to be coordinated internationally to be effective, but I think that would be achievable if the US sent a credible signal by forcibly shutting down any one of the major labs.
This is never going to happen. Is something can be done, it will be done.
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#277I feel like their are (at least) three main critiques of AI, and I wish we could debate them separately, because I think they each have different resolutions. The first is the fear of job loss, and I feel like this is the most straightforward to deal with. Personally, I think the solution should be to share the productivity of AI with society at large, in particular since AI owes most of its abilities to training on…
Needing less offices, less people driving to those offices, less A/C and heating for those offices and less resources building those offices could offset the energy usage of AI.
Remote work accomplishes all that as Covid days proved.
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#278Bear in mind, in the same survey this article is talking about, nothing and nobody had an overall positive rating amongst those polled. So yeah, AI is unpopular, but it's just one more thing that people hate amongst a broader cultural movement of generalised hate.
What you term “a broader cultural movement of generalised hate” is just a reflection of people’s dissatisfaction and fear regarding the state of the world. They’re seeing wages stagnate and prices go up. They hear news about how well the stock market is doing, but they don’t see any of those benefits. They see their politicians spend money on war and destruction but refuse to spend money on social programs. At the sa…
Did people act like this in the 70s too when we had stagflation, mass unemployment, gas rationing, Vietnam, Nixon, etc. to contend with? I ask that sincerely because I wasn't around then. The US got a ton of cool music and cinema during that decade (disco and soft rock excepted) but the rest of it sounds even worse than things are now.
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#279I feel like their are (at least) three main critiques of AI, and I wish we could debate them separately, because I think they each have different resolutions. The first is the fear of job loss, and I feel like this is the most straightforward to deal with. Personally, I think the solution should be to share the productivity of AI with society at large, in particular since AI owes most of its abilities to training on…
> The easiest way would be a straight tax on AI usage, and using that tax to pay a universal basic income
Problem for jobs is that there are 200 countries and all the earnings will go to a few. Universal basic income for everyone? Or just the US?
Who gets to keep their house locations in a new fair world? The person whose parents bought in the right place 50 years ago? Who pays the money these models earn, if nobody clicks ads or does a job? What is income for if we don’t work and can just ask the AI for everything we want?
What happens when the super smart AI comes up with “better” (more fair, consistent, etc) answers than you think you have to questions like the above? What if they end up socialist? Do we force it (and invite risk it escapes and fights us for the greater good) or give in to the presumably more thorough reasoning?