321–330 of 378 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know those terms and now I'm afraid to search for them. The Cybernetic Bureaucracy Mind might label me a dissident with terrible taste in music.
find out without ever touching your spotify account, https://lustmord.bandcamp.com , only whoever you share your browser search history with will know
Every time some product or service introduces AI (or more accurately shoves it down our throats) people start looking for a way to get rid of it. It's so strange how much money and time companies are pouring into "features" that the public continues to reject at every opportunity. At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast numbers of e…
> At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast amounts of employees out of work It's this part. Salaries and benefits are expensive. A computer program doesn't need a salary, retirement benefits, insurance, retirement, doesn't call in sick, doesn't take vacations, works 24/7, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen liquor stores that handle alcohol sales through self-checkout without friction. They don't check IDs 99% of the time, which I suspect could get them in some trouble, but instead the monitoring employee basically looks at you and makes a judgement call on your age and if you're clearly not a child they approve it before you're even done scanning.
What state or territory does that? Not a challenge, just curious, there are over 50 to track.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will be a crash as with any hype cycle But this is normal. A new thing is discovered, the market runs lots of tests to discover where it works / doesn’t, there’s a crash, valid use cases are found / scaled and the market matures. Y’all surely lived thru the mobile app hype cycle, where every startup was “uber for x”. The amount of money being spent today pales in comparison to the long term money on even one us…
It's a weird cycle though where the order of everything is messed up. The normal tech innovation model is: 1. User problem identified, 2. Technology advancement achieved, 3. Application built to solve problem With AI, it's turned into: 1. Technology advancement achieved, 2. Applications haphazardly being built to do anything with Technology, 3. Frantic search for users who might want to use applications. I don't know…
But just as the conservative old-school business people were laughing and patting themselves on the back post-bubble over how stupid all the dotcoms were for thinking they could monetize eyeballs, Google emerges, and 20 years later tech companies drive the stock market rather than following it. Don't dismiss a technology just because the birthing spasms look ugly, it takes some time for markets to develop and for products to settle into niches. At the start a lot of that is due to people not being comfortable, tech sucking, and the market shifting too quickly to precisely target, but that can all change pretty fast.
Every time some product or service introduces AI (or more accurately shoves it down our throats) people start looking for a way to get rid of it. It's so strange how much money and time companies are pouring into "features" that the public continues to reject at every opportunity. At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast numbers of e…
Jokes aside, investors behind google seem to not realize that google at this point is infrastructure and not an expandable product market anymore. What's left to expand to since the Google India Ad 2013? What? North Korea, China, Russia, maybe? And then everyone gets their payout?
Financial ecosystems and their bets rely on infinite expansion capabilities, which is not possible without space travel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who do they think will buy their products if there are no employees anywhere? Businesses, even business facing ones, eventually rely on consumers at some point to buy things. What can be gained by putting everyone out of work?
I remain skeptical of the prediction that AI will simply “take over jobs”. If AI becomes advanced enough to perform tasks traditionally done by skilled professionals, it would instead democratize access to capabilities that are currently gatekept by wealth and resources (since right now you can’t have human employees, but you’d be able to have AI workers for cheap). In this scenario, individuals without substantial c…
When someone uses an AI they do not own, they are (maybe) receiving a benefit in exchange for improving that AI and associated intellectual property / competitive advantage of the person or entity that owns the AI—-and subsequently improving the final position of the AI’s owner.
The better an AI becomes, the more valuable it becomes, and the more likely that the owner of the AI would want to either restrict access to the AI and extract additional value from users (e.g. via paid subscription model) or leverage the AI to develop new or improve existing revenue streams—-even if doing so is to the detriment of AI users. After all… a sufficiently-trained “AGI” AI could (in theory) be capable of outsmarting anyone that uses it, know more about its users than its users consciously know about themselves, and could act faster than any human.
While I share in your hope, I think it is unfortunately far more likely that AIs will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots and will evolve into some of the most financially and intellectually oppressive technology ever used by humans (willingly or not).
Every time some product or service introduces AI (or more accurately shoves it down our throats) people start looking for a way to get rid of it. It's so strange how much money and time companies are pouring into "features" that the public continues to reject at every opportunity. At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast numbers of e…
Every time some product or service introduces AI (or more accurately shoves it down our throats) people start looking for a way to get rid of it. It's so strange how much money and time companies are pouring into "features" that the public continues to reject at every opportunity. At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast numbers of e…
> At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast numbers of employees out of work no. On the contrary. We will need people to clean the mess left by AI > and allow companies to use the massive amounts of data they've collected about us against us more effectively. yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen liquor stores that handle alcohol sales through self-checkout without friction. They don't check IDs 99% of the time, which I suspect could get them in some trouble, but instead the monitoring employee basically looks at you and makes a judgement call on your age and if you're clearly not a child they approve it before you're even done scanning.
What state or territory does that? Not a challenge, just curious, there are over 50 to track.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but doesn't that basically mean there are two camps: people who dislike it, and people who don't care? I also agree with GP in that there isn't any visible 3rd camp: people who want it. If google themselves thought people wanted this, they wouldn't need to make an un-dismissable popup in all of their products with one button, "yes please enable gemini for me", in order for people to use it. I'm sure google t…
No, I like the AI summaries and I had assumed I was in the silent majority. People like convenience and it usually answers correctly.