Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The AI Hate Progression

xodium.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 201 posts

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#71

Post by pesus »

empath75 wrote: post #59
pesus wrote: post #5

Good write up, and I think it accurately sums up many people's feelings about AI. One thing I would disagree with is the idea of AI getting a do over. Even if they somehow managed to do that, the idea of AI is fundamentally tainted for whole generations of people, and its reputation only gets worse every day. There's no coming back from that any time soon.

Statements like this are just totally detached from reality. AI products are incredibly popular, even amongst people who say they dislike “AI”. Maybe that acronym is tainted, but the technology isn’t going anywhere.

> Statements like this are just totally detached from reality.

Funny, I could say the same about this condescending statement. Maybe it depends on who you interact with. I associate with almost no tech people outside of work, and am probably a bit on the younger side compared to most people on HN.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#72

Post by fvckaigotohell »

dvt wrote: post #31

> At some point, the entire tech industry saw ChatGPT and fell into a collective psychosis and decided that this, this is the next big thing, and that we must pull out the stops to ensure the prophecy is fulfilled of generative AI/LLMs becoming the next big thing. This is extremely disingenuous, ChatGPT was the fastest-growing consumer product for a reason. Part hype, part usefulness, part novelty. The main problem I…

[flagged]

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#73

Post by mrguyorama »

adamddev1 wrote: post #15
rightbyte wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding an lying abstraction just makes noticeing lies even harder. Google's summary even lies about the sources for the lies.

So true. The last 3-4 times I have checked the sources did NOT say what the Google AI summary said they did.

The time's the AI summary are actually useful are when it repeats, verbatim, some website, usually wikipedia.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#74

Post by pesus »

recursive wrote: post #53
comrade1234 wrote: post #29

I have a coworker that irrationally hated ai too. He says something about how his daughter and friends' hobby is jailbreaking ai. We have a product used in call centers. It turns out ai is amazing in triaging (surveying) people. We can ask a question in English and if they respond n another language (any language) the ai will switch to that language, ask its questions, and then give us the answers in English. This wa…

Why "irrationally"? Nothing seems irrational here.

It allows them to dismiss anyone who doesn't buy into what they're selling without any actual effort and maintain a superiority complex at the same time. A common tactic these days for all sorts of things - after all, they're logical and rational, and not like those silly normies who are emotional and incapable of being "rational" like them.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#75

Post by btouellette »

Varelion wrote: post #37

I, and everyone in my social circle, go out of our way to not touch anything that was had AI significantly involved in the creation process. Hypocritically, I use AI a lot at work. I see it as using it a lot more than I am paying for, to actively sink OpenAI/Claud's bottom line. I have a coworker that does the same. His logic was sound -- when something is heavily subsidized, abuse it.

Your work is using personal subscriptions? If not a corporate client is probably paying per token via the API and you're just feeding money to them not sinking their bottom line.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#76

Post by jcgrillo »

ragequittah wrote: post #4
adamddev1 wrote: post #2

The lack of consent is real. As one of those viral commencement speakers who got booed said: "Find a way to say yes." My greater concern is that we are trading away hard earned truths for drastically inferred best guesses and slop that is just good enough to work. Search engine AI summaries flat out lie and deceive people all the time. LLM agents fudge over and cut corners. What people don't understand is the exponen…

>Search engine AI summaries flat out lie and deceive people all the time. What was the alternative you were using that gave you 100% accurate information before? Search engines lied all the time as well. As did news sites and any other place you could go to for information. AI just makes it easier to get the information people were already consuming.

Before, when working on my car I would google bolt torque specs and usually the first result was authoritative--generally a forum post from a reliable, professional mechanic quoting the factory shop manual. Now the first result is an AI summary, which is wrong roughly 25-50% of the time in my experience. Often it does incredibly stupid things like mix up ft•lbs and N•m. If I were to trust this, it could kill me (or worse, someone else).

Now I don't google at all anymore, instead I spend 10min flipping through the manual to find the spec. One might argue that I should have been doing this all along, but it sure was convenient to have basically a 100% reliable, fast alternative. Now that's gone.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#77

Post by altcognito »

wyre wrote: post #40
altcognito wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The idea of AI is fundamentally tainted" What does this even mean? You don't like machine learning? You don't like the letters AI? There's no coming back to what? Do you work in the tech industry?

you okay? why do u need to be so patronizing? did you read tfa? they're obviously talking about the public's perception of LLM's, especially outside of the tech industry. "the idea of AI is fundamentally tainted" is not a confusing statement in reference to that.

Condescending, I was condescending, and I cut back on it some.

I read the op and authors text as hope and cope that AI is held back by popular sentiment because they have some sort of personal fears about it. Computers are tools, and LLMs are a tool. Is it wrong to have issues about the way tech companies are abusing the system?

Where were these people when other industries were being "disrupted" and breaking the law?

I have a lot of issues with tech companies and their CEOs, but very little problems with the technology.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#78

Post by ihsw »

Varelion wrote: post #37

I, and everyone in my social circle, go out of our way to not touch anything that was had AI significantly involved in the creation process. Hypocritically, I use AI a lot at work. I see it as using it a lot more than I am paying for, to actively sink OpenAI/Claud's bottom line. I have a coworker that does the same. His logic was sound -- when something is heavily subsidized, abuse it.

[dead]

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#79

Post by pesus »

simianwords wrote: post #61

This post is fodder for the neo-conservative (or neo-luddite) left. The neo-conservative left is a political movement by the elite and privileged class of people who are technically literate. Their secret/subconscious ideology is for the status quo to remain. The reason is simple, they never stood for progresss. They actually always wanted to conserve but they liked parroting "progressive" talking points when it help…

The AI companies are run by billionaires and now trillionaires that publicly brag about getting rid of artists and creating a permanent underclass. The only people actually profiting off of this are either stakeholders in those companies and/or command extremely high compensation from those companies. Those are the elite and privileged, not the average person who is against this.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#80

Post by munk-a »

btouellette wrote: post #75
Varelion wrote: post #37

I, and everyone in my social circle, go out of our way to not touch anything that was had AI significantly involved in the creation process. Hypocritically, I use AI a lot at work. I see it as using it a lot more than I am paying for, to actively sink OpenAI/Claud's bottom line. I have a coworker that does the same. His logic was sound -- when something is heavily subsidized, abuse it.

Your work is using personal subscriptions? If not a corporate client is probably paying per token via the API and you're just feeding money to them not sinking their bottom line.

The per token costs are still dramatically subsidized. The major AI models are priced below cost especially when accounting for depreciation.

We live in the time of Uber Eats letting you pay 50 cents to hire a limousine that will deliver a burrito to your stoop.

Post reply on HN