Survey: Americans fear AI will hurt them. Experts expect the opposite.
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Nasty, brutish, and short ring a bell?
There was a natural malthusian trap. Generally you were either living like shit, or living pretty good because you were one of the few survivors of a plague that annihilated a significant portion of the entire population, thus leaving fertile lands and pasture open to you and causing wage growth.
Or you could be a hunter-gatherer, and live pretty comfortably without too much work. But then you die whenever there's a particularly cold winter because you don't have any buffer. Or just die from the absolutely horrific homicide rates of premodern societies. And let's not even get started on what it was like to be a woman.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Can you provide licenses for the content Microsoft used to develop its model for commercial use?
I stopped your last paragraph at the false assertion laid bare because the answer to the question above is "No, and neither does Microsoft." Had you said "in theory," you'd be fine. In actual practice, including how you used it, "in general" AI is fruit from the poisoned tree.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Read what you wrote, dude.
Peasant labor bred to produce labor to feed and cannon fodder to pursue the enrichment of their feudal lords being your idea of "just fine," you must be happy with the current efforts to return you and all those you know to such a state, despite handwaving away poverty in your second non-sequitor of a paragraph.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
And remember that serfdom was, by law, often prohibited from getting an education, so they simply didn't have any notion that there was any other way to life. Well, the puritan revolution paved the way to overthrowing that, but then there's the OTHER parts of the puritan movement that led to... disregarding the "savages" of the new world.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCShsGCkOP4
Basically, the revolution happened for a reason, and every step along the way solved some problem. The notion that we all need to return to some glorified fictional golden age of the past is, well, one of the tenets of fascism.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
you don’t have to go all the way out to fascism
its a basic tenet of the right
(power and privilege for the few)
and conservatives in general
though there is an argument that fascism is where the right is always ultimately heading
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
They're already there. They are already there, right now, currently. This is generally agreed upon. Even the writer of the book warning against the basic tenets and signs of fascism has decided to move to Canada. We aren't yet in a full blown dictatorship, but it's obvious they are setting the groundwork to get TO that point right now, in literally arguing that the President's authority outranks both the courts and congress. This is happening.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
well. yeah.
the current popular right - any political movement supported by Thatcher’s ‘International Democracy Union’ is definitely headed towards if
not already arrived at fascism
- the IDU is currently headed by Stephen Harper -last time I checked anyway
and as a Canadian I apologize for that
we’re well familiar how horrible POS that man is.
just saying - there is some slight historical and theoretical air gap between all of the right and Fascism
may not seem like much of one now as Fascism has clearly taken centre stage
but … historically it was perfectly possible to be a elitist aristocratic member of the right and not have to soil yirself with the populist nonsense of fascism
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
... And the majority of the American voting public voted for Trump. So I guess I'm not surprised by this finding.
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
That's concerning to me - the 44% from the general population.
I had an X-ray of my chest a couple weeks ago. I'd much rather have an AI analyze that picture and make an assessment first before passing it off to some 2-4 docs/technicians who may or may not have been on the ball that day and really took the time to scan that X-ray carefully.
2 eyeballs from someone with 1,000s of X-ray images experience or an unflinching set of AI "eyeballs" with 100,000+ X-ray image experience? I'd like them to start with the unflinching eyeballs first and then the 2-4 pairs of eyeballs of humans to confirm the finding of AI.
In fact, that recent X-ray was of a problem that had cropped up a few weeks earlier and the first 2 or 3 doctors/technicians didn't find what the 2nd round of folks scanning my X-rays found, apparently.
Yeah, I'm glad I got 2 sets of X-rays instead of 1 set to find the problem immediately. /s
Bu that's just me.
Upvote
-7
(0
/
-7)
Another area I could see AI helping immensely is in law. Sure, you have to have someone double-check the results of a query about an obscure ruling from 85 years ago. But, that's what AI can do, give an answer to the query AND THEN give the source.
No big deal.
That should already be in heavy use now, in my opinion. We spend WAAAAY too much on lawyering.
In particular, Trumps bag of tools (lawyers) should be slapped down hard and "with prejudice" regularly. (Yes, I realize I could be using the phrase "with prejudice" wrong here, but it sounds good for the spirit of my meaning.)
No big deal.
That should already be in heavy use now, in my opinion. We spend WAAAAY too much on lawyering.
In particular, Trumps bag of tools (lawyers) should be slapped down hard and "with prejudice" regularly. (Yes, I realize I could be using the phrase "with prejudice" wrong here, but it sounds good for the spirit of my meaning.)
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
yeah
ignoring the multiple instances where lawyers (universally bad lawyers) have tried to use Ai (admittedly often by misusing an llm ) for research or actually find precedents and have it blow up in their face spectacularly
let alone the attempts of marketing an Ai lawyer that would make you legal case for you - even offering money for someone to wear and earpiece and have the Ai ( another llm) make the argument in court
- also failed and is actually illegal
turns out the legal system is designed having actual human lawyers in the court representing each side- and can be really touchy about trying to get around that
there was a recent attempt to build a legal reference Ai service (app) kinda similar to your suggestion
by basically scraping an existing firm to ‘train model’
that didn’t go so well either
https://www.techspot.com/news/106738-federal-judge-rules-against-ai-company-major-copyright.html
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
To be clear, I'm not saying AI is at the point where we could set a laptop in front of a judge, hit Go, then walk away to let the computer continue on to completion. Not that I believe you were making that argument at all. I kind of feel like you're just adding to my initial thoughts on this and not necessarily arguing against me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, what I envision is the law team would use AI behind the scenes to build the bulk of their argument. Then, during a trial, the team would pull up quick rebuttals to the opposing arguments - if there are any - etc, etc.
And I could see the court evolving in ways where a judge may intervene in the middle of "discovery", or whatever the research phase is called, to pass arguments back and forth even before the trial starts in earnest in front of a jury. (That's all conjecture off the top of my head, and IANAL!)
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
no. that’s exactly what all those bad lawyers i mentioned at the start tried
admittedly it was likely chatgpt or another llm powered search function that was marketed as being able to do research (or at least that was implied)
pretty much universally it presented none sense arguments with flawed legal logic and misrepresented or straight up hallucinated prior cases to back its arguments
look I ain’t a lawyer neither but I know legal research is a hard earned skill and firms are very possessive of their associates who excel at it
those big shelves of nearly identical books on display behind every lawyer who has a youtube channel are not a set (normally) those are the tools of the trade and they are specific to the area of law you work in and the local area in which you do that work
to have an LLM or even a supposedly generative Ai do your research for a case - to find reliably relevant legal precedents or worse write the presentation of your case to the judge is about as clever as getting one to write your doctoral thesis
you might even manage to sneak one by a particularly senile judge once or twice
- but eventually either the opposing consul or an bored clerk is going figure it out
and at that point your facing disbarment proceedings
edit
I was going to try to correct all the times predictive text mis guessed my admittedly atrocious typing -
but it kinda proves the point - if you cut corners on yir homework and hope the Ai will fix it
you are bound to fail
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Most experts either don't know this or don't care, but getting AI to make art isn't art. Only people can make and appreciate art. Sure a computer can make a pretty picture, but its meaningless. It just generated it, there's no themes or passion involved. An AI book? What themes does the AI want to express in its work? Nothing? Did it pick the plot because it thinks 95% of people will like the story. If it was a tool to help then yeah it might be useful but people are using it to replace thinking, and that's not good. People are already trying to use LLM's to do law, so how much longer we'll it be before someone's in court telling a judge that they thought a course of action was fine because an AI chatbot said so. The average person is still skeptical as to whether the internet is a useful technology and its not being marketed as a tech to replace jobs and reduce costs. Every company last year was falling over themselves to add AI chips to phones and computers without some driving need or hot app that uses it. For what? Its bad at making art and still can't write coherently outside of some narrow cases. These experts live in a bubble. The only application I see it working well at is surveillance and translation, and no one wants it being used for survellance.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
How do you know? Have passion and teme been defined in a way that can help us preclude what AI is doing as provably different from what humans do?
This is the whole 'AI doesn't think' argument over again.
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
Yeah; you get what you pay for
Conversely, I'm in the middle of playing a version using the same prompt that skips the "build to python" step and stays within the chatbot interface -- it's MUCH richer in what it provides, but there's zero opportunity to replicate the play, and it appears that once certain game aspects leave the context window, they're gone for good (so after hundreds of moves, I'm still wandering around in the wilderness with a band of NPCs, currently trying to figure out how to open a door that appears to be connected to some glowing plants which are linked to a reservoir of glowing green liquid. On the plus side, the bot hasn't killed me off yet, but it seems to have totally forgotten the plot arc and got me mired down at the start of Act 2.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Well, it's the fact that it lacks any consciousness that matters because human beings WANT to do art. This isn't where we should be offloading work! We have the right to demand this task for ourselves, because WE MATTER, and LLM AI doesn't, because it doesn't "want" anything and it's "rights" are not worth considering.
Seriously, it's like we're running "The measure of a man" in reverse.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Pause and consider that you just described a focused and competent search engine. Not "AI."
Imagine how good basic search could be if Google cared about that as opposed to ad revenues.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Yeah, read back over my reply and it was just me self-incriminating I think. : )
There's a tonne of concerns around the tech which people are justifiably worried about on a much more immediate "am I gonna still have a job in a couple of years?" manner, and I've never really looked into what the Luddites actually believed around this, it's always just been a convenient substitute label for "tech-illiterate", in the same manner as "boomer" or whatever. Thanks for the correction on this.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
In my opinion, art is art, whether AI makes it, or "man" makes it ... or nature makes it. If you can look at the Grand Canyon and see the beauty in it, can you not look at a beautiful piece of AI art and not see something beautiful in it?
Man didn't make the Grand Canyon so is it not beautiful (art) in its own right? Or a sunset or a reflective mountain lake?
EDIT: heck, for that matter, since many people paint nature, should we not call their art "art" since they only regurgitated what nature did in the first place?
I'm not saying AI should replace humans, but seriously, to say it's not art just because a human or nature didn't create it seems arguable at best.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
I've used lots of search engines and AI gives me more precise answers quickly to get to solutions in my work. I'd much rather use AI to help with my coding than to continue searching through dozens of URLs to arrive at some obscure solution.
I've had MANY situations in recent months that make AI hands-down better than search engines.
And don't give the me the whole "hallucination" bit - I could not have moved on with my coding solutions if the AI was giving me hallucinations rather than real, solid answers to my coding problems. Period.
Okay, if you want to label it "focused and competent search engines" fine, do that. It doesn't change the fact that the new LLMs, which frankly are more like AI than the basic search engine, have changed the way I search for answers. And yes, I do my due-diligence to verify the answers if it's not an algorithmic coding solution-type of question-answer that'll prove itself worthy or not when I attempt it.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
Okay, you, yourself, just stated the problem: bad lawyers.
I realize that people vote me down because I'm on some bizarre "ignorant list" somewhere. And, honestly, I don't know how people can vote down my comment earlier about a doctor asking for X-rays and not finding the answer and then a 2nd doctor asking for X-rays and then finding a problem.
How do they think the 1st guy missing it only to have to go to do the same X-rays for a 2nd doctor is better than an AI system find a problem the first time around? I'm not understanding how 6 people (as of this writing, with 0 up-votes) think I'm somehow a simpleton who believes people are infallible?
That first doc wasn't my primary, he just happened to be available sooner than my regular doc. And the telephone nurse felt I was right to want to get in sooner than wait for my primary. What if I'd followed up with the first doc rather than follow up with my primary? Would the first guy eventually find the problem? And don't give the me the "I'm searching for a doc to confirm my ailment" bullshit. The pain was real and was affecting my breathing significantly, especially the second time I went in to see the doc to press for answers.
To get back closer to the topic, as someone else pointed out, "it's just a glorified search engine." Okay, well, then FUCKING USE IT, you fucking numbskulls.
Fuck it, I'm tired of trying to explain myself to people. To me, it's just so FUCKING obvious..... How do you explain the obvious to people who refuse to even stop a moment and think about what appears to be such an opposing viewpoint. I didn't realize I'm so fucking out there as to be labeled a tool in many peoples' minds.
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
Cool story, bro. I'm glad you consider it a useful tool. Now go back and read the comment you made to which I replied that said nothing about using these tools as your personal codemonkey.
Context, son. If you don't understand its importance, then it is completely consistent with your embrace of what these models offer.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Because both doctors are actually doctors with an actual goal and a conscious mind actually thinking about things. Getting a second opinion from another doctor is standard practice and has been for a long time. AI should NOT be making major important decisions on anything, EVER, for ANY reason!
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
ok - I’ll respond to this because you addressed it to me but I really don’t think I’m the person(s) you were talking to.
(I’m not entirely sure who that is, but it’s pretty clear its not me)
but coincidentally if you want to talk mal-practice I got a bunch of stories
some pretty gory going all the way back to my youth
and I just so happen to have allot of experience with doctors nurses and surgeons in the last couple years
and some of it was amazing- literally life saving
but most of its was …. disappointing
and recently some of it - infuriating
for instance,
being told dismissively for four months that:
‘there’s lots of reasons people piss blood’
as am regularly filling the bowl with clots and the dark black blood of a corpse
in such pain and discomfort that I was walking like Biden
I eventually realized i wasn’t going to get any help from this particular ‘doctor’ so got my self to the er to get myself a catscan
-and was immediately scheduled for an emergency surgery to remove my left kidney and the 7.5cm stage 2 tumour bisecting it which had gone necrotic
(all my ex girlfriends were right, I was literally dead inside)
- this tumour would have been clearly detected by the ultrasound I had to insist the ‘doctor’ send me for over 3 months earlier when I first started pissing blood
indeed I know it was, as the ultrasound tech, who took 4 times longer than scheduled having me assume multiple awkward positions- they’re not allowed to tell you results but I asked if it a stone and was told ‘oh there’s a massive stone in there but that’s not the issue’
- and there’s so much more to this particular story, including being told at one point it had metastasized to my aorta was inoperable and I had about a 4 year life expectancy
- I got a second opinion, actually BC Cancer held a special multidisciplinary conference about my case and we found a surgeon willing to risk operating, it apparently went well.
but yeah : you have to be your own advocate and always get multiple opinions
and some doctors suck
and so on.
but my point about them being Bad Lawyers was that only bad lawyers would try to use a LLM for research, even worse to write your brief or find relevant legal precedents to back up yir case.
its an idea that only occurs to someone too lazy or overwhelmed to handle the case
plus its just a really dumb thing to do
and any lawyer that tried to have an Ai in effect present their case in court, even if that Ai was capable of doing so, would almost certainly be breaking the law,
a law that most judges really care about - not a thing good lawyers tend to want to do.
anyway. sorry if I strayed off topic - you’ll have to admit you kinda did first
really I’m just trying to distract myself from the world in general (and that I might now have diabetes)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Because it isn't obvious. It isn't black and white. "AI" isn't good or bad.
How it is used is where lies the difference.
This site, among other sources, has run ample stories that show "AI" in the hands of knowledgeable professionals can be a good medical tool, and also that "AI" on its own is no better than relying on Dr. Google--or on internet randos like you and me. Thinking it is more than that is, simply put, dangerous. Advocating its use for more than that is irresponsible.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
It's going to have to be a heck of a lot better than it is - every article I've read on the subject says that when people try to use it to become more productive at work, it turns out to be more time-consuming than just doing it. Any summary, report, etc. that AI writes has to be minutely examined for errors, and the errors often get through anyway because they're subtle. People's jobs become more stressful whenever they're forced to use "AI".
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Worth something, certainly, to you in this situation. Worth the environmental resources it uses up, just to save a little time?
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Eew, how awful! First-world problem, or: Why They Hate Us.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)