It’s a tool like any other. If used correctly it can provide a great value to the world. If used incorrectly then in this case it can also do the opposite. AI isn’t good or bad intrinsically. It boils down to our relationship to it. The same can be said for all the other tools, radio, television, internet and so on.
I would trust Linus Torvalds to use AI to do this because the AI is literally trying to copy him when it writes that code. In that context, he is the training data.
Well, the tool apparently fought him and “several times stated flat out that this was impossible and unsolvable and that we should just write a report about it.”
And it also doesn’t look like the LLM actually added code so much as helped with debug code and analysis, however exactly that may have looked like. The resulting fix changes three lines of code, very much human-writable or -verifiable.
Also, let’s not worship Linus. The guy has done much good and is brilliant, but he’s still human, still capable of making mistakes. This instance working out well deserves the proper appreciation, bu we still ought to be wary.
The problem with majority of “LLM critics” is that they are brain dead luddites that argue with ragebait emotion rather than rationality.
Unsurprisingly LLMs are just computers that can be useful, can be wasteful, can be life saving and can be society destroyed - it’s a tool.
What lives have been saved by LLMs?
I absolutely take Luddite as a compliment, the historical Luddites were cool as hell. And with the benefit of hindsight, we now know their predictions were basically correct about increasing automation leading to lower quality products and more alienated lifestyles.
Also, I know enough about finance to know that if these computers cost more money to keep on than they bring in (which they do) they won’t be around long-term.
This story keeps getting parroted and it’s completely untrue. Luddites gained no extra rights due to their actions they gained rights decades later through actual policy activism.
But they want it to be cool to be metaphorical ostriches with their proverbial heads stuck in the figurative ground!
Sure not all the critique is accurate, but in its current form, it causes huge issues with water and noise pollution in places the data centers are built, and are sucking unbelievable amounts of power, while essentially DDOSing tons of sites to scrape data, and often using copyrighted material that they have no license for. It is also reducing people’s ability to think critically because people turn to it immediately.
I’m not an idiot who will say it’s not useful, but we need to slow down by about 20x with what we’re doing with it now, and save it mainly for medical usage until we have a solution to those massive problems.
Honestly I don’t disagree with your take. We should slow down and be diligent with our roll out and policies but sadly that’s not what the mainstream discussion is all about - it’s all so binary.
The water and noise problem functionally has zero to do with llms as a tool. That is entirely and solely a byproduct over over expansion of corporate intrests.
That’s like saying the lumber mill is the reason logging is harmful to the environment.
It’s nonsensical and requests objective ignorance of the context and nuance of the problem
There’s nothing that actually requires the data center problem to exist for llms to also exist. There are alternative.
We already have a perfectly good policy framework for datacenters: just charge them the negative externality costs. The problem is that they want datacenters now and repay external costs like electricity, water etc later because it takes 1 year to build a datacenter but 5 years to route power and water.
We already solve for this with economic credits but people just don’t trust these systems because of corruption and poor governance. The credits never trickle down to people who pay for externalities.
This is not even a datacenter issue.
You’re making too much sense, Dr. Better stop before they turn their irrational hatred on you. You’re making it difficult for the slow-thinking Neo-Luddites to blindly hate this technology, and they have to hate something so they’ll turn their blind hatred on you!
Yes which is why I’m not against ai as a whole, just in its current form it needs massive regulations. I would still not be happy about how it’s ruined huge portions of the internet, but I would probably put up with that for the value it provides.
AI is like a power tool. If you give a contractor a nail gun instead of a hammer he can build a house faster. If you give someone who has no idea how to build a house a nail gun they’ll just fail at building a house faster than if you only gave them a hammer and they’ll probably hurt themselves.
Also lowkey the nailgun isn’t even that much faster, it’s more about saving wear on the workers’ elbows. IDK if that applies with programming. Saving cognitive load for other tasks? Source: used to work in construction. Never point a nailgun at anyone except your supervisor.
It 100% can save cognitive load if used correctly. Knowing the limitations and restraints of your tools is true for every profession.
If you know what your llm can and can not do reliably you reduce the over head of verification to basically zero. While if you use it poorly you basically have to double your work load to fix things.
Problem being that the majority of software engineers really don’t know how to build software well.
And are using AI as a tool to just accelerate their lack of engineering.
This is a very old discussion and argument, much older than the current AI push. You’re right to a degree but also that hasn’t stopped the rise of strong minds for software development. There will always be the curious and the lazy. The curious will always want to know how things work from the chain of events of a button click to the pixel shifts and logic gate flips to display code on a screen as well as run it. There will also always be the lazy unencumbered by such a desire for awareness who just want the magic box to do the thing.
How many software devs can write in assembly? Not many. Not much has changed if anything beyond the ability of the unaware to see their will come into creation. People couldn’t make realistic images and now they snap selfies with no barriers to entry. Does that make them a photographer or an artist? Not really.
LAInus.
Fuck off with these fake AI bubble pumping stories. fake ass grifters reading the same script wherever you go (“Im a mathamatician and IM SCARED” lol)
It’s all horse shit.
Sorry guys but your AI powered sex doll is going in the chipper along with her unpublished Unified Field theory.
The fact that you compared “AI powered sex doll” to Linus using an LLM to generate code he reviewed and accepted (as if he’s reviewing any of the many contributions he reviews and constantly rejects for the simplest mistakes) shows that you know nothing about the different applications of “AI”.
Yes, the “AI powered” sex toy is an example of an idiotic scam, the AI powered assistant that hallucinates in a conversation isn’t very useful, but code that literally does what it should do, reviewed by a competent engineer, is no different from reviewing code from any of your coworkers. It’s code, if it’s garbage you reject it, is it isn’t then the tool was useful.
Some of a bitch!
Just a few days ago, I argued with a douche nozzle who told me, with the confidence of a master debater, that AI has no useful purpose.
But apparently, not all of you feel that way. Linus uses AI and suddenly y’all change your tune! What a load of crap!
I’ve been sitting here saying for years that AI is a tool and should be used as such, while getting called a tech-bro simp for saying it.
Man, this has once again revealed the massive, two-faced, bandwagon nature of Lemmy.
Y’all should have stayed on Reddit!
Were you perhapse… talking to different people?
I think the vitriol around AI has crossed into moral absolutism for a lot of people. There are legitimate criticisms of AI, but “AI can be harmful” does not logically mean “all AI use is unethical” or “AI has no useful purpose.” Treating every use as morally equivalent is just hasty generalization and guilt by association.
At some point, “AI is bad” stops being a conclusion and becomes a sacred value. Then useful examples are not considered on their merits, they are dismissed because they threaten the moral position. You can criticize harmful uses of AI without pretending the technology itself has no legitimate use.
Why do we all have to be morally homogenous? I use AI tools, but I understand that a “morally absolutist” take from someone who doesnt use it or see the value, and who places a lot of value on, say the environmental or social cost, can be reasonable. I also eat meat but understand that some people have a reasonable argument for totally avoiding it. The messyness is human.
LLMs are akin to fancy Photoshop filters for code. They can be used well by professionals and terrible by n00bs.
They are but a (very inefficient) tool.
No. That’s… That’s completely wrong.
It is amazing how y’all don’t know how any of this tech works.
Linus Torvalds used it to fix some code but it’s like a Photoshop filter? Come on man… You can’t be that intentionally ignorant.
Go do some research. Jesus.
Look I’m not some kind of supporter or fan boy but even I know how utterly reductive and incorrect what you said is.
You clearly don’t understand what an analogy is.
Maybe if you’d stop using AI for all mental activities you’d fucking understand that
What you said isn’t an analogy… What?
LLM is just an algorithm.
Think in terms of any other algorithm. If someone said they use a particular algorithm for everything, that would be a bad programmer. But if someone else said they would never ever use a particular algorithm because it’s the tool of the devil, would that be a good programmer.
Software engineering is about knowing when an algorithm should be used and where it shouldn’t be used. LLMs don’t change that, it’s just another algorithm. The engineer should make the decision not marketing hype. But the decision should also not be made by reactionaries.
Pseudo intellectual bullshit is not helping your case.
Anti-intellectualism doesn’t help yours.
Who’s changing their tune?
It’s interesting to see AI being used for something as practical as debugging a Linux issue. I think the bigger question is how much developers can rely on AI without losing their understanding of the underlying code. AI can clearly speed things up, but human review still seems essential.
It’s especially essential to mark the code as AI generated. AI makes mistakes just as humans do. Problem is AI makes different kinds of mistakes than humans.
A human will tend to forget to do something they were supposed to do. An AI will do a bunch of unnecessary shit.
Also you can tell that a human didn’t put a lot of thought into some code (no comments, sloppy variable names) so you’re more likely to say “yeah ok, I used to make that kind of mistake when I was younger” and just fix it. AI generated code will have all kinds of comments which normally makes you more hesitant before making a change. It looks like someone really thought through what they were doing, but in reality it’s something generated by an LLM and no real thought was given to the code.
I think its pretty clear that an OG hacker like linus using AI as a helpful assistant is very different from a junior dev using it as a crutch
The question now is how to develop proper software engineers who have the old school skills first and foremmost, and then are able to use the assistance of an AI
Exactly. AI should complement strong fundamentals, not replace them. Developers still need to learn how to think, debug, understand systems, and make technical decisions independently. Once those foundations are solid, AI becomes a powerful multiplier rather than a crutch.
So this is how I hear about the outcome of the Debian vote. :( Is there a widespread distro that has a clear anti-Sloo stance?
Hyperbola definetely.
I believe gentoo is too.I wanted to eventually try gentoo anyways, I guess I will have to advance that experiment. Never heard of Hyperbola, I will check it out. Thank you!
- he didn’t use AI, he used a slop bot.
- if he did, it’s possible he just used it for analysis
- either way it’d prove that no one is immune to becoming a moron, especially as they get older.
Using AI is not the same as vibe coding.
Asking AI to write a piece of code and then read it, understand and use, is a very reasonable use case.
Using AI is not the same as vibe coding.
i’ve been in dozens of lemmy threads that disagree…
There’s a huge portion of lemmy who think even one token of AI is unacceptable for any reason
I’m in a thread where the entire idea of AI/LLMs has been declared facist, with ZERO legitimate use cases other than facism
that’s like declaring electric light racism and keep using light bulbs…
Like all people that see racism everywhere, they will fail…
It’s a tool, use it where it works well.
I agree with you…
But be prepared to be labelled a facist on lemmy
apparently there’s no such thing as a neutral technology or tool
It’s just a tool. All tools have good and bad use cases.
I agree…
But check out the other discussions on lemmy about AI …
if you’re not 100% against it, you’re a facist
I wonder how long before he gets comfy relying on it and something really shitty slips in.
Dude merges in code into the kernel originating from how many thousands of developers from around the world?
Read the LKML if you think he’s a guy that’s prone to getting comfy with merging in sub-par code.
oh he’s quick to put the brakes on other PR’s including slop code.
which makes me wonder how long until he’s comfy and forgets sometimes the slop comes from inside the building lol.
You assume humans don’t ever write sloppy code and Linux Torvalds has never before encountered someone wanting to merge in sloppy code before. If in decades he hasn’t gotten comfy with sloppy code written by humans, why would he suddenly be merging in sloppy code written by an AI? He’s never been worried about hurting the feelings of a human that’s writing sloppy, do you suppose he’s going to develop empathy for an LLM that’s writing sloppy code?
The people that go all in on vibe coding are people that aren’t very good programmers to begin with. They don’t really understand how to write code and then suddenly they can make things work quickly. Well sort of work. At least work about as well as they could with their limited skills.
People that are actually good at programming know what good code is. After decades of working with code and knowing what it’s supposed to be, you don’t suddenly become a vibe coder saying eh, it kind of works, good enough, ship it. Its the people that were never able to write high quality code to begin with that do that. It can do the job of a lazy programmer that has a low standard of quality. For a skilled developer, it can sometimes save on typing on some simple tasks, and a good developer knows when it did something wrong and be all Thanos and say “fine, I’ll do it myself”.
Is Linus error-free pre-AI?
If AI makes Linus more (quantity) or more severely (quality) error-prone than without the AI, that, and only that is an argument against AI being a tech asset for Linus.
Just one bad Linux kernel commit slip up related to AI is not an argument.
That said, the macro impact of the AI data centers and AI on: electric power generation and grids, pollution (smelly exhaust, noise, CO2), fresh water demands, socioeconomic power imbalance exacerbation, surveillance capitalism, questionable military usages, rogue agentic AI doing hacks and crimes to fulfill oterwise legal/ethical objectives, AI chatbot relationship addiction, these are some of what I consider real and urgent problems with AI.
As an individual, his LLM carbon footprint and money used to purchase AI services aren’t going to matter at all. But him being one of the world’s highest profiled software engineers who’s openly using these tools is very good publicity for them.
I think the anti ai crowd has been focusing on the slop angle too much, the horrible malpractice of these companies is the real problem imo. If it really is only slop it will die out by itself.
so many possible upsides it’s hard to pick which one will end the species.
fml
Yeah, and Torvalds using generative AI to write code is not the same as Bobby LinkedIn telling us he’s coding his third app this week.
People are forgetting the AI hype train is reliant on the fact that businesses and individuals can’t host the AI themselves, which is rapidly changing.
All that insane power that OpenAI and Anthropic have harnessed is suddenly completely useless when you can just spin up a competing model at home, with HF hosting a crap ton of finetuned models like uncensored/abliterated to do whatever you want with it.
Even Deepseek released their full size models if you happen to have 400Gb (or 1.5Tb) of VRAM lying around.
When the bubble (hopefully) pops, AI will just continue to be a tool that devs use where applicable, and likely not on a massive data center cloud as it migrates into consumer electronics.
AI hype train is reliant on the fact that businesses and individuals can’t host the AI themselves
This is, like, one of a dozen major problems with LLM’s.
I think this is a much more sensible attitude than the pitchfork wavers declaring mandatory zero-tolerance or you’re evil.
Nothing wrong with using llms in useful ways, as long as they keep giving factual and unbiased information. Or you can look up stuff online and verify in a book at the library, although that could be outdated too, hmm. Unfortunately I noticed they do more of the “both sides have good points” (Perry’s scheme level 3 of 9), even when it’s a lopsided topic. We need impartial ratings somehow to show how biased the various models become and people will stay in the ones they like, or not use them or other ways to learn.
Locked into the low-level, high-control systems, they won’t learn how unhealthy they are and how to do better with freedom and equality, like it’s always been, just updated with the tech. Ask llms to use Sagan’s baloney detection kit and Perry’s highest thinking levels to analyze problems, with the main goal of how to help humanity, the environment, etc. that benefits the majority and minimizes damage. Try to make the llm work in favor of humanity rather than the owners’ greed.
Develop ego awareness, notice when it reacts with upset to new information, and choose to learn anyway. As you recognize the unhealthy indoctrination you absorbed, use that anger to break free from high-control systems, guided by the truth that sets you free. Then learn to manage the cognitive dissonance and the inner resistance that clings to the old beliefs once you’ve woken up to the truth. Good luck!
Please can someone fork the kernel, it would be so fucking funny
People who are vehemently against any form of AI will be left behind. That may be difficult to hear, and even more difficult to accept, but that is the cold, hard, truth.
Its a tool, and just like any tool it has uses. It can be used inappropriately, and it’s valid to criticize those instances. But if you are plugging your ears and going “Lalala!” when people talk about actual valid use cases, or stubbornly pretending that it has none, you will be left behind.
You will be like office employees from the 80’s and 90’s who refused to use a computer and then suddenly found themselves without a job. It’s your choice if you use it or not. It’s also every company’s choice to not hire you because of your unwillingness to adapt.
If you haven’t learned it yet, this is your warning and your wake-up call: Learn how to use AI now, or find a different career. It’s not going away, no matter how much you may bitch and moan. There will soon be two classes of people, those who learned how to use this emerging technology, and those who refused. Things will be much harder for that second group.
I don’t say this to be snarky or smug. I hate AI myself, but I also recognize how fucking stupid I’d have to be to refuse to use it. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but it’s also the truth.
I am 100% fine with being left behind by a technology that I see as an attempted corporate surveillance scheme that has metastasized into a giant money pit. The difference from the 80’s and 90’s is people were actually using computers to make money back then. If any AI company is actually making more money than they’re spending, I haven’t heard about it, and you’d think they’d be advertising it. https://isaiprofitable.com/
I’ve been happy to fully sit this one out thus far. Don’t feel like I’m missing a damn thing.
It’s a classic scammer tactic to create a false sense of urgency, so people sign up for something without thinking.
Slow down, and do some critical thinking. The promise of AI is that you can type in a simple prompt and the AI will figure out all of the complicated computer stuff for you. How would someone be “left behind” by this technology? Do you suppose that experienced developers will lose the ability to write simple sentences?
I don’t think people will loose the ability to type in “make that button green”. Even if AI fulfills it’s promises (which is doubtful, read up on the halting problem) someone who knows how computers work will be more employable than someone that only knows how to write prompts. Because the person that knows how computers work can also write prompts and will be better at doing that than someone that doesn’t know anything about computers.
More important in this day and age is learning how to spot a scam. Someone pressuring you to do something immediately is likely scamming you.
People who are vehemently against any form of blockchain technology will be left behind. That may be difficult to hear, and even more difficult to accept, but that is the cold, hard, truth. Blockchain is a tool, and just like any tool it has uses. It can be used inappropriately, and it’s valid to criticize those instances. But if you are plugging your ears and going “Lalala!” when people talk about actual valid use cases, or stubbornly pretending that blockchain has none, **you will be left behind**. You will be like office employees from the 80’s and 90’s who refused to use a computer and then suddenly found themselves without a job. It’s your choice if you use blockchain or not. It’s also every company’s choice to not hire you because of your unwillingness to adapt. If you haven’t learned it yet, this is your warning and your wake-up call: Learn how to use blockchain now, or find a different career. It’s not going away, no matter how much you may *removed* and moan. There will soon be two classes of people, those who learned how to use this emerging technology, and those who refused. Things will be much harder for that second group. I don’t say this to be snarky or smug. I hate blockchain myself, but I also recognize how fucking stupid I’d have to be to refuse to use it. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but it’s also the truth.
Ah, there we go, I knew your rhetoric sounded familiar!
Seriously though, what “skills” are you building by learning how to use LLMs at your corporate job? How to tell a chatbot to do a task for you?
Sure, if you’re trying to build a local LLM server from scratch, tune a minimalist harness with a RAG and custom skills, optimize context compaction and concurrent token throughput, and integrate all that into existing automation pipelines, that takes some technical skill. But that’s a tiny fraction of people in the corporate world that need to do anything like that.
I could teach vast majority of corporate workers everything they will ever need to know about using “AI” in a half hour Lunch-N-Learn. There is no skill involved in asking a chatbot to move all your emails about “Project ABC” into a new Outlook folder called, “Project ABC” or asking a chatbot to, “draft a department memo about the new parking policy found in the HR SharePoint site.”
It’s not the next industrial revolution, it’s not the beginning of the Singularity, it’s not the dawn of a new age of our species. It is merely the latest hype-cycle of Capitalism that exists to siphon wealth from the population up to a handful of ultra wealthy billionaires and megacorps, and artificially prop up a dying economy just a little longer. And long term, we will discover the same thing about LLM use as we are finding out now about electronics in school and the mass proliferation of smart phones: That it stunts people’s critical reasoning, reading comprehension, self-image, and social confidence.
Seriously though, what “skills” are you building by learning how to use LLMs at your corporate job?
i’m not learning any skills… i’m offloading some work on to AI so that i can do other stuff on company time…
Isn’t that what we should all aspire to? To destroy capitalism from the inside?
Capitalism isn’t being “destroyed from the inside” by you offloading grunt work to an agent. If anything, you may be helping justify future cuts of your job by demonstrating that there is less need for you. Your managers will be all too happy to cut half your department and make the remaining people take on all that work because, “AI makes them 5x more productive.” Of course, none of those people will get a 5x pay raise.
Use it or don’t, it doesn’t make a difference in the long run. This bubble will pop soon anyways and we’ll be on to the next “revolutionary technology.” I suspect it will be quantum computing, I’ve been seeing a significant upswing in news articles and bot traffic about that over the last few months, but who knows.
If your work is pushing AI hard, use it if you need the job, play the game if you have to, just don’t let yourself be mesmerized by the aggressive marketing hype. Anybody who is pushing the idea that tech workers will be replaced in the next 5-10 years with LLMs is a religious fanatic and should be treated with the appropriate levels of mockery and disdain.
Also, if you really want to work on taking down Capitalism, organize your labor, and support other movements that do the same.
Writing an appropriate prompt is a skill. Many (most?) people using LLMs aren’t using prompts that give them what they actually want, in many cases because they don’t understand the thing they’re trying to ask for, but also in many cases because they don’t know how to ask for it while avoiding the many possible pitfalls that come with uncareful prompts (including, but not limited to, hallucination and bias).
Personally I haven’t bothered learning that skill yet, largely because I don’t want that crap shoved in my face all the damned time, and have little use for it anyway. But it’s still a skill.
It’s really not for most people. You ask a question, the LLM answers. You ask it to do a task, it does it. Most people are not using these things for anything advanced or technically difficult.
I work in a big corporate office, if you exclude the IT staff and software devs, here’s a pretty exhaustive list of what everybody else is using LLMs for:
- Organizing emails.
- Drafting memos and auto-responses in Teams.
- Organizing cluttered files.
- Adding “artwork” to company fliers.
- Doing web searches.
- Summarizing emails and Teams messages and creating to-do lists from them.
- Searching large documents for key terms.
It’s grunt work, that’s what these things excel at, and that’s how most people use them. That’s fine, but acting like most people are somehow not able to unlock the “true potential” of these LLMs unless they have special training and skills is a marketing ploy to sell overpriced “AI” courses to gullible and ignorant executives and upper managers.
It’s like those stupid DEI courses that corporations have everybody take so they can “learn to not be problematic.” But all the quizzes are filled with stupid stuff like:
Your manager, Sarah finishes briefing you and your coworker, Phil on an upcoming project. After she leaves, Phil says to you, “That Sarah sure is a real juicy piece of meat, I’d love to get taste of her!” What should you do? A. High-five Phil and tell him you call dibs on her secretary. B. Tell Phil that his comment was not appropriate, then report it to HR.
It’s just there to check boxes for compliance and provide an excuse for other companies to charge outrageous prices to tell people that sexually assaulting your coworkers or pulling your eyelids tight and calling yourself “Ching Chong” isn’t appropriate office behavior.
It’s another way Capitalism poisons and hollows out substantive discussions about topics like systemic racism, multiculturalism, and gender relationships, in favor of standardized quizzes that cost thousands of dollars a year to administer.
The amount of “AI consultants” and “AI integration” firms that have popped up overnight is staggering. Just like with the crypto/blockchain craze a few years ago, everybody is trying to get rich quick off the hype.
Good point. I probably should have stated “using LLMs for technical tasks that anyone cares about the results of”.
I’m not going to claim LLMs are trustworthy, but I am saying that there are ways to ask things that either reduce the odds of it giving you false things or actively cause it to provide wrong answers with misstated or hallucinated context. People who know what they’re doing can get better results out of them. This doesn’t stop them from being the equivalent of a nepo-hire intern, but it could be said to change whether they’re a malicious, apathetic, or semi-eager nepo-hire intern.
And one of the big risks with LLMs is staff who can recognise bullshit or questionable results being replaced with staff who unquestioningly accept whatever results they get. And people reading an “AI summary” of something and assuming it’s actually accurate.
This falls apart the second you look at it when you see that it doesn’t take much learning to use that tool for most applications.
At the same time, people overly reliant on that tool take a big hit in developing and strengthening their own skilks and thinking capabilities.
Combine the two things if you still can.
agreed
the issue I have with how people use it is that it’s easy to just create more shit that they spew out into the world
I’ve got no issue with people using tools to improve their work. I think it’s fair to say that AI is enough like predictive text and spell check when it comes to tools you can use at work. and like any tool, the user is still responsible for the end result
my main problem with AI is that it is absolutely fucking our world (environmentally and economically) to create pure garbage that is thrown in my face every day. like, scale it back a bit everyone…
it is absolutely fucking our world (environmentally and economically)
Environmentally, it has yet to surpass Bitcoin in electricity usage (though it’s set to triple soon, and that will make it a bigger power hog than all of cryptocurrenty).
Economically, this is the biggest bubble since the 1800s railroad boom. Scaled for inflation and GDP railroads were a far bigger gamble than AI, and they hit a 20ish year recession when that boom was over.
Hopefully the “fungible technology” argument holds water, and whatever AI investments don’t work out the hardware / data centers can be re-purposed for truly valuable aspects of it. Truly valuable to who is the key question.
Bit coin farms never built massive illegal gas turbine power plants in residential neighbourhoods at least not that I know of.
Not that I am a fan of the waste for crypto mining either.
Facts. Whether you like it or not. It’s good to have a healthy amount of criticism towards AI and to fact check it and not blindly trust. But you can’t wish it away or pretend it has zero merit. I guess you can…
Amen.
Why can I not upvote and downvote?
Agreed, although simply using LLMs to do your thinking for you is only going to decrease your value in the workplace and make you more replaceable. The goal needs to be learning how to use AI to expand your thinking, counteract your biases, improve the quality of your work, and accelerate your learning.
I don’t know if you noticed you contradicted yourself there. Letting ai do your thinking decreasing your value and then, talking about using ai to replace your thinking.
Ai is causing psychosis because people are trying to use it to replace thinking. If you don’t use it you lose it, literally especially with your brain. You have to know how to produce those skills from within or you don’t have those skills and then you are worthless in any workplace, but more importantly to yourself. You have to be meta to the aim being the TV show, and control it from a place of checks and balances (us performing those checks and balances of ai) handing over the reigns of higher thinking to a machine designed to be a yes man, is not ever a pathway to expanding your thinking or even learning to use ai, that’s just sitting on a couch till you lose critical muscle mass, but it’s your brain. (No shame to sitting on a couch or losing muscle mass, I’m just trying to explain it in relative terms)
Currently there is no way to use ai without causing ai hallucinations, because there isn’t a model readily available that runs as a tool, there are only models that run as a manipulative tool that provoke said replacement of your thinking, I can not assume that’s an accident. Seeing the usual levels of evil that come from the companies pushing this hard, tells me this is just as evil, if not the most evil thing they’ve done, measured against all the things they’re openly flouting, copyright law, openly burning rare literature for a monopoly, burning the already past tipping point climate, burning computer ownership and accessibility, I could go on. Theres very open bribery and flouting of social rules laws and common moralities, they’re desperate to cause this monster they’ve created out of ai, to attach like the symbiot in aliens that I forget the name of because I’m pre first coffee and my brain just be like that.
I am anti ai, as it currently stands. The current versions need to be left to die in silence and hatred and rejection we are all collectively currently showing. Only because it has been made into a Frankensteins monster, by the people responsible who have infinite money to pay judges to rule their way and have zero morals, nay a deficit of morals.
Ai will survive the ai bubble, because the ai bubble is the unsustainable practices of the billionaires and the manipulative interface designed to lessen your critical thinking skills.
But the ai that survives the bubble will and should be so highly regulated (it’s currently the opposite) and used as a tool, not a replacement for critical thinking, it can never do that. But there are so many things it can do to better humanity, none of which are currently being used.
We have to wait this one out. We’re not missing any boat.
If AI can do it for you, then let it. If it can’t, that’s where your value lies. If you just refuse to let it do things it can do well, you will be replaced by someone who’s probably not as smart as you but simply willing to let AI do what it does well.
As GP said: using AI to do a better job than was possible before is the real value.
It’s like they used to say back in the 80s: to really foul things up you need to use a computer, and it’s very true that both computers and AI magnify the opportunity to screw up in newer bigger more spectacular ways. AI also gives the opportunity to make a bunch of banal clip-art sideways printed banners - and those were cool for about 15 seconds back when you first saw them, just like the walking cats videos.
So, you can ignore AI, probably for 5-10 years in most jobs it applies to, before “reality” hits and they just can’t use people who don’t know how to use it (properly, for more than cat videos) anymore. You can take up basket weaving, sit at a booth at your local arts markets selling baskets - no AI required - or… you can figure out how to use it properly. Sort of like computers in the 80s, there aren’t a lot of valuable guides out there, it’s very new and changing ridiculously fast - if you’re going to master it, you’re probably going to have to dive in and figure it out for yourself, or join the 2nd wave of adopters who “wait for the training” and do the cookie cutter jobs with it.
The future is hard to see, always moving, but the scarier part about AI vs “the computer” is that AI can do a lot of the obvious stuff already: “take a memo”, “look this up on Google”, “make a list of all people who match these criteria…” in the computer you still needed a keyboard and mouse jockey, with AI… I’m not sure what 2nd wave adopter jobs will be out there in quantity.
Like anything else, using the tool properly requires skill and care.
good thing that downvotes can only be used to suppress narratives on lemmy. lol
