You’re flailing.
You’re at level 1 of trolling, you’re just doing the first thing that comes into your head, and because your head isnt at all special, its all just tired, obvious and toothless.
Get better, nobody will bite at the level you’re operating at, you just look thick x
Now you’re confessing to not know how timezones work, please stop outting your own idiocy its hard to watch.
Three main counterpoint to this.
Why would it fade, even if they never changed somehow their capabilities would be frozen, not degrade.
The open source community also works wonders, people who care about stuff like this will collectively spend millions of hours working on it.
Finally, those older but still highly capable models have become explosively more efficient in the past several years, I saw a figure that models from 2 years back are now 280x more efficient (cheaper to run) than they were when released, there’s no reason a company couldn’t field one of these, work on it slower and more conservatively, and profit from it.
Why do you feel it would be entirely different in any of those scenarios, what did you have in mind there? Some specific use cases it would lose perhaps?
Its no different from any other tool really, you don’t pick it up and immediately master it, you learn what it is and isn’t good at and ideas come over time as you go about your life and you wonder if problems that might previously not have been worth even trying to solve could be worth throwing at this new tool.
I used it to get a overview of the most popular tracks in a specific genre in a specific city 20 years ago by pulling set list data from various places on the internet the other day. Incredible results.
Trivial but very useful to me, as someone who spends a lot of time looking for new music.
You’re confusing AI with OpenAI.
They, anthropic, others, are constantly pushing and over-extending, but theyve already long since by passed models that are useful for various tasks. Certainly not everything, but if the big players died tomorrow you could run a local model on a gaming GPU that would still do decent amounts of work if you were the kind of person who had a use for it.
Not everyone is, and thats ok.
I find chatgpt very useful for work, but id be cool with them failing and having to downgrade. Models already did what I needed well enough a year ago, maybe a bit more.
One in eight people globally use an AI app, not just something that happens to include an ai feature like Google search, on a regular basis.
There are definitely still going to be pockets totally not touching it, and that will probably continue for a long time, but its very much soaking into global society.
https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-global-overview-report
None of that means you should be using it, just pointing out that your immediate social group may not be an accurate reflection of reality.
Like as a counter anecdote - my gran has used it - and i feel like when old people get to a tech its approaching ubiquity, Facebook being the primary example I have in mind.
You must admit, a lot of people think the bubble bursting will be the end of the technology. I see that sentiment a lot on here.
Did you just learn what baiting is today 😂 lurk a bit longer and learn how its done, terrible execution, makes you seem braindead.
Imagine a child called you a big stupid head.
How would you feel?
Now you understand how toothless this moronic drivel is.
Learn what words mean, you’re just shaming yourself publicly.
Absolutely embarrassing level of discourse.
Go find a headline to get mad at sheep.
I find this perspective quite difficult to reconcile with my own experience. I’ve saved countless hours using AI, solved problems I wouldn’t previously have known how to approach, and used it to venture into areas well outside my existing skill set, often learning a great deal in the process. So when you insist it’s useless, destroys critical thinking and erodes skills, I can’t help but feel you’re demonstrating a lack of imagination about how it can actually be used, along with a bit of doomerism.
If you’re blindly accepting everything it tells you and outsourcing all your thinking to it, I can see how that might be detrimental. But that’s one way of using it. You can just as easily use it to explore unfamiliar subjects, interact with complicated concepts, challenge your assumptions and develop skills you didn’t previously have. These are largely questions of education and critical thinking, and teaching people how to evaluate information and use tools responsibly is invaluable whether LLMs exist or not. We could honestly use a bit of motivation to push this harder don’t you think?
Again, the environmental costs and concerns about cognitive dependency are valid, but neither establishes that the technology has no utility. Likewise, the enormous financial losses of some AI companies raise serious questions about their business models, but you’re making the common mistake of confusing that with whether the technology itself is economically viable. The cost of running models at comparable levels of capability has fallen enormously in a handful of years, and there’s no reason to expect that to suddenly cease.
Your argument here conflates three different questions: whether AI is useful, whether the current industry is financially sustainable, and whether its widespread adoption is benefiting society. These are related, but fundamentally different questions with potentially very different answers, and you seem more interested in dismissing all three outright than examining them individually.
And once again, several of your criticisms concern corporate behaviour and economic incentives, which is precisely what my original comment was about. Others are legitimate questions about the technology’s limitations and how people use it. But you’re lumping all of these together as though they demonstrate that AI is fundamentally useless, when they don’t. A technology can have serious limitations, be deployed irresponsibly and still offer enormous practical value.
How so, what sort of change do you imagine?
The phrase “in its current form/implementation” is doing quite a lot of work there, how the technology is implemented is the topic. That’s whether it’s primarily used to replace workers (not that I think it capable of that in earnest right now) and maximise profits, or to reduce workloads, improve services and make people’s lives easier, and those are largely a question of political and economic priorities.
The fact that people can use a tool badly, or become overly dependent on it, doesn’t mean the tool is inherently harmful. You could make similar arguments about calculators, GPS, the internet or countless other technologies we’ve incorporated into everyday life. I’ve always had a naturally good sense of direction, I don’t think GPS ruined the world by helping people who don’t.
I also don’t see how restricting access to a tiny group of specialists is supposed to improve matters. Surely concentrating the benefits of a powerful technology in the hands of a privileged few would make some of the problems we’re discussing way worse?
Nothing changes if we waited another five years, imo. Efficiency and reliability will presumably improve, but if the same economic incentives remain, those improvements can just as easily be used to displace more workers and concentrate more wealth.
That’s really all i’m saying above. We can argue about the limitations of the technology all day, but if we don’t address the systems determining how it’s deployed and who benefits from it, we’re missing a much bigger part of the problem. It’s akin to renovating a house while ignoring that it’s built on a lake of custard.
A lot of these are the distractions imo, they take problems with how AI is currently developed and deployed and treat them as inherent properties of the technology itself. A lot of these criticisms have been repeated so often they’ve become accepted wisdom in certain circles, despite not standing up particularly well to scrutiny. You’ve also raised quite a few of them in a relatively short space, without much supporting argument, so addressing them properly is inevitably going to take a much longer response. Apologies in advance but bear with me if you care about the topic at all.
“Fundamentally unreliable” is an increasingly outdated way of viewing LLMs given how much they’ve improved in fairly short order. There’s no denying the fact they can be wrong, but reliability is entirely task-dependent. AI might be poor at specific factual verification while being extremely useful for programming, accessibility, education, brainstorming or countless other applications. It’s a tool, and how useful it is depends enormously on what you’re using it for and how well you understand its limitations. Dismissing an entire technology because it performs poorly at certain tasks is an arbitrarily narrow way of evaluating it.
“Rooted in plagiarism” confuses training on existing material with reproducing it. There are legitimate copyright and consent issues, but that doesn’t make the technology itself plagiarism. Likewise, there’s a big difference between pointing out unethical practices in the AI industry and claiming that the technology fundamentally depends on them. You’ve demonstrated neither why those practices are unavoidable nor why they couldn’t be addressed. If you want to point out a company that’s done something unethical, entirely valid, that’s not the same thing as saying the technology cannot exist ethically, that’s nonsense.
Re artists, fully agree there are legitimate concerns about compensation, consent and displacement, but I don’t think the existence of AI generated art inherently devalues human creativity. Much of the damage here comes down to how the technology is commercialised and regulated, which ties into my comment above.
The environmental costs are real, but you’ve not attempted to weigh them against the benefits, so you could be saying that about any polluting technology. You’ve used one to write this to me. You probably used one to get to work this morning. There might be one keeping your house the correct temperature. New technologies are very often relatively inefficient in their early stages, I doubt you’ll struggle to imagine prior examples of that, and LLMs have already become significantly more computationally efficient in the few years since their mainstream introduction, as has the hardware. That obviously doesn’t negate their environmental impact, particularly as demand continues to grow, but treating today’s resource requirements as an inherent, permanent characteristic of the technology is shortsighted.
That’s a regulation issue. Ireland put in some rules last year that any new data centre had to also install enough solar to cover it’s entire demand and connect it to the grid. More of the world needs to be doing shit like that. If they want to profit, they need to earn it.
The cognitive debt research you mentioned is preliminary and task specific, and evidence of AI reinforcing delusions in vulnerable individuals doesn’t mean that the technology generally causes psychological harm, and it’s hardly the first technology capable of that. Books can do that, tv, social media, not to mention 4chan. That’s another regulation issue, safeguarding. Similarly, AI reinforcing people’s existing biases is a legitimate concern, but that’s not really unique to AI. Algorithms have been doing that for years, and AI can equally be used to challenge people’s assumptions, depending on how it’s designed and used.
The corporate greed, labour displacement, reckless investment and the concentration of wealth are serious concerns, and the core part of why I think the political and economic context surrounding AI matters so much, and that leads me into to the thing that drives me to argue any of these points. The chances of the technology going away are essentially zero, there is absolutely no point in talking about that. It’s a fantasy. You’d need a solar flare or a global revolution, most of us cant even revolt against being reigned by overt paedophiles. There is far more value in talking about how to mitigate the issues around it, because that is actually plausible.
I just think you’re making a big leap from identifying problems with AI, some perfectly legitimate, to concluding that the technology itself is fundamentally bad. And calling it a “technological dead end” seems especially strange given how much it’s improved in just a few years. I don’t see how you’ve arrived at that conclusion, or why you’d be confident these problems are impossible to address.
It’s worth comparing AI to previous ‘technological revolutions’. They brought enormous benefits alongside serious social disruption, exploitation and unintended consequences. How those benefits and harms were distributed depended massively on the political and economic systems surrounding them. There’s no reason to look at AI any differently.
I appreciate that we’re probably not going to agree on this, but you put some effort into your response, so I thought it deserved a proper one in return.
An age legislation issue and a capitalistic over-reach issue. Algorithms are fucking people’s minds, no argument there. AI is just more fuel on an existing fire that nobody profiting from it wants to do anything about.
AI is a symptom, its not the root of the problem. If AI had popped up in a time where the common persons wellbeing was prioritised it would be hailed as miraculous.
We have a political problem, dont let the foreground distract you.
‘You’re still replying’ doesnt work when you are also replying. You have to get better at this this is pathetic. You shame your troll ancestors.