I’m not an AI techie and I’m not well educated on LLMs/AI in general. The issue I’m having is the dichotomy between how people talk about it. I’ve heard completely opposite ends of the spectrum. From AI is quickly becoming advanced enough to threaten human society, all the way to its a glorified dictionary/search engine that can’t really do much of anything. I know Lemmy has a steep anti-AI slant. But, can someone talk about this in a way I can wrap my head around why the divide seems so big?

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Personally, this just feels like marketing and these big asshole companies trying to resurrect the 2025 level of hype in order to salvage their IPO’s.

    If they honestly believed this I can’t imagine that their workers wouldn’t do something more drastic.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I think that they’re seeing all the scary movie stuff start to come true - but missing the essential plot holes like that one: just unplug it.

      People complain about AI slop - well, before AI slop there was lazy human slop, but lazy humans generally gave up before writing too many words or painting too much mess, or digital clone-stamping too many generic things… Truth is: if you put in 1/2 the effort of making something great without an AI tool into making something great with an AI tool, you can usually get something much better out in the end - if you’re sincerely trying to use the tools well.

      It’s the people who don’t know / don’t care whether the result is slop or not who are putting in 1/10th (or less) the effort of making something great who are putting all the slop out there.

      I’m not afraid of the machines taking over (yet), but I am afraid that the same explosion in copy-pasta document vomit that came with word processing 40-ish years ago is going to explode again into a docpocalypse with people using AI to drown each other in supposed “legal written” communications that are only even vaguely understandable using AI tools to read them.

      • non_burglar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I don’t think anyone’s afraid of the machines taking over, but human stupidity in over-relying on them.

  • mEEGal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Check out Robert MILES’ channel: he’s an expert, one of the most prominent on AI safety

    take your time to understand the mechanics of it, its a bit technical at times but ultimately very understandable

    and try not to freak out when you find out it’s from several years ago, mostly before the advent of LLMs

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg

  • blitzen@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    53 minutes ago

    The people claiming it’s humanity ending are all directly involved in the AI companies. One take is that they are the ones that know the most about it.

    My take is they are financially incentivized in making sure their investments grow in value.

    • vividspecter@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      9 hours ago

      A third take is that they are unhinged cult members who are high on their own supply. Although I expect it’s a mix of both types (maybe within the same people).

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I knew a guy in high school that told girls they shouldn’t date him because his dick was so big it would hurt them. You can wax philosophical on his motives if you’d like, but spoiler alert - his dick wasn’t big.

    • adhdsergio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      That’s exactly what I think is happening. Remember a few months ago anthropic saying mythos is too dangerous to release until the government as the idiots they are starting believing them and banned them from exporting it, therefore losing them money. Very quickly they came up with fable (ironic name isn’t it) a week or two later saying it’s got the proper safeguards now. Now they’re all trying this marketing strategy asking the gov to regulate them, seemingly because they’re dangerous and not because they’re getting diminishing returns and feel threatened by the chinese competition

  • RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The biggest risk I see is Idiocracy. Like, the movie.

    Business workers become afraid to do or propose anything without AI signoff. Retail & service workers are told to do what the AI says, the way the AI says to do it, or get fired.

    Technology innovator Marshall Brain (RIP) wrote a book in the early 2000s about an AI called “Manna” designed to replace fast food managers:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20201204080050/https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

    The AI just talks in your ear all day: “Empty one bag of fries into the fryer. You have 6.5 minutes, switch to the sandwich station. Make one Big Burger: grab one patty from the 1/4 pound bin and place it on the griddle… … The fries are ready, turn around and lift them into the drain hopper…”

    All day, every day, exactly 8 hours plus mandatory breaks, employees on autopilot listening on ear buds.

  • Z72.53@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Ed Zitron’s podcast “Better Offline” recently talked about this. There is a small tech community called the Rationalists who believe AI super intelligence is inevitable and it will either accelerate humanity to new heights or kill off the species. These rationalists are actually a very prominent faction within tech and the AI industry. Apparently the language used within top AI firms is largely about the immense danger posed by AI super intelligence if any other group or company were to achieve it first. This creates an echo chamber that makes the people in the industry kind of lose their mind and misinterpret the capability of LLMs.

    Everyone outside that faction recognizes that LLMs are just unreliable cloud software with limited use cases and that there’s no evidence LLMs could actually lead to any kind of intelligence.