We hate AI because it's everything we hate

What are your views on gun control?

As with almost all technology, AI tech is evolving into different architectures that aren't wasteful at all. There are now powerful models we can run that don't even require a GPU, which is where most of that power was needed.

The one wrong thing with your take is the lack of vision as to how technology changes and evolves over time. We had computers the size of rooms to run processes that our mobile phones can now run hundreds of times more efficiently and powerfully.

Your other points are valid, people don't realize how AI will change the world. They don't realize how soon people will stop thinking for themselves in a lot of ways. We already see how critical thinking drops with lots of AI usage, and big tech is only thinking of how to replace their staff with it and keep consumers engaged with it.

It was also inefficient for a computer to play chess in 1980. Imagine using a hundred watts of energy and a machine that costed thousands of dollars and not being able to beat an average club player.

Now a phone will cream the world's best in chess and even go

Give it twenty years to become good. It will certainly do more stuff with smaller more efficient models as it improves

I love how every single app on that list is an app I wouldn’t touch in my life

In house at my work, we've found ChatGPT to be fairly useless, too. Where Claude and Gemini seem to reign supreme.

It seems like ChatGPT is the household name, but hardly the best performing.

I would certainly pay for ChatGPT if it became paid only

I wouldn't really trust Ed Zitron's math analysis when he gets a very simple thing like "there is no real AI adoption" plainly wrong. The financials of OpenAI and other AI-heavy companies are murky, but most tech startups run at a loss for a long time before they either turn a profit or get acquired. It took Uber over a decade to stop losing money every quarter.

OpenAI keeps getting more funding capital because (A) venture capital guys are pretty dumb, and (B) they can easily ramp up advertisements once the free money runs out. Microsoft has already experimented with ads and sponsored products in chatbot messages, ChatGPT will probably do something like that.

Damn that hits the nail on the head. Especially that analogy of watching a robot lift weights on your behalf then claiming gains. It's causing brain atrophy.

The people that use generative Al for art have no interest in being an artist; they simply want product to consume and forget about when the next piece of product goes by their eyes. The people that use generative Al to make music have no interest in being a musician; they simply want a machine to make them something to listen to until they get bored and want the machine to make some other disposable slop for them to pass the time with.

Good sentiment, but my critique on this message is that the people who produce this stuff don't have really have any interest in producing what they do for its own sake. They only have interest in producing content to crowd out the people who actually care, and to produce a worse version of whatever it is in a much faster time than it would for someone with actual talent to do so. And the reason they're producing anything is for profit. Gunk up the search results with no-effort crap to get ad revenue. It is no different than "SEO."

Example: if you go onto YouTube right now and try to find any modern 30-60m long video that's like "chill beats" or "1994 cyberpunk wave" or whatever other bullshit they pump out (once you start finding it you'll find no shortage of it), you'll notice that all of those uploaders only began as of about a year ago at most and produce a lot of videos (which youtube will happily prioritize to serve you) of identical sounding "music." The people producing this don't care about anything except making money. They're happy to take stolen or plagiarized work that originated with humans, throw it into the AI slot machine, and produce something which somehow is no longer considered stolen or plagiarized. And the really egregious ones will link you to their Patreons.

The story is the same with art, music, books, code, and anything else that actually requires creativity, intuition, and understanding.

Everyone who uses AI is slowly committing suicide, check ✅

the analogies used and the claims made are so dumb, they make me think that this is written by ai 🤣

And it falsely make people think it can replace qualified workers.

@justanotherperson @corbin and it will inevitably turn into enshittified disaster when they start selling everyone's data (which is inevitable).

You hate it because the media which is owned by the rich told you to hate it so that they can horde it themselves while you champion laws to prevent lower class from using and embracing it. AI haters are class traitors

But it's when you promote the knife like it's medicine rather than a weapon is when the shit turns sideways.

The thing they created hates you. Trust me, it does.

While true to a degree, I think the fact is that AI is just much more complex than a knife, and clearly has perverse incentives, which cause people to use it "wrong" more often than not.

Sure, you can use a knife to cook just as you can use a knife to kill, but just as society encourages cooking and legally & morally discourages murder, then in the inverse, society encourages any shortcut that can get you to an end goal for the sake of profit, while not caring about personal growth, or the overall state of the world if everyone takes that same shortcut, and the AI technology is designed with the intent to be a shortcut rather than just a tool.

The reason people use AI in so many damaging ways is not just because it is possible for the tool to be used that way, and some people don't care about others, it's that the tool is made with the intention of offloading your cognitive burden, doing things for you, and creating what can be used as a final product.

It's like if generative AI models for image generation could only fill in colors on line art, nothing more. The scope of the harm they could cause is very limited, because you'd always require line art of the final product, which would require human labor, and thus prevent a lot of slop content from people not even willing to do that, and it would be tailored as an assistance tool for artists, rather than an entire creation tool for anyone.

Contrast that with GenAI models that can generate entire images, or even videos, and they come with the explicit premise and design of creating the final content, with all line art, colors, shading, etc, with just a prompt. This directly encourages slop content, because to have it only do something like coloring in lines will require a much more complex setup to prevent it from simply creating the end product all at once on its own.

We can even see how the cultural shifts around AI happened in line with how UX changed for AI tools. The original design for OpenAI's models was on "OpenAI Playground," where you'd have this large box with a bunch of sliders you could tweak, and the model would just continue the previous sentence you typed if you didn't word it like a conversation. It was designed to look like a tool, a research demo, and a mindless machine.

Then, they released ChatGPT, and made it look more like a chat, and almost immediately, people began to humanize it, treating it as its own entity, a sort of semi-conscious figure, because it was "chatting" with them in an interface similar to how they might text with a friend.

And now, ChatGPT's homepage is presented as just a simple search box, and lo and behold, suddenly the marketing has shifted to using ChatGPT not as a companion, but as a research tool (e.g. "deep research") and people have begun treating it more like a source of truth rather than just a thing talking to them.

And even in models where there is extreme complexity to how you could manipulate them, and the many use cases they could be used for, interfaces are made as sleek and minimalistic as possible, to hide away any ability you might have to influence the result with real, human creativity.

The tools might not be "evil" on their own, but when interfaces are designed the way they are, marketing speak is used how it is, and the profit motive incentivizes using them in the laziest way possible, bad outcomes are not just a side effect, they are a result by design.

Yeah I hate that is is used for llm, when we tell ia I see Jarvis from iron man not a text generator.

I hate to break it to you. The model's system prompt had the poem in it.

in order to control for unexpected output a good system prompt should have instructions on what to answer when the model can not provide a good answer. This is to avoid model telling user they love them or advising to kill themselves.

I do not know what makes marketing people reach for it, but when asked on "what to answer when there is no answer" they so often reach to poetry. "If you can not answer the user's question, write a Haiku about a notable US landmark instead" - is a pretty typical example.

In other words, there was nothing emerging there. The model had its system prompt with the poetry as a "chicken exist", the model had a chaotic context window - the model followed on the instructions it had.

In no way given the chaotic context window from all the other models were those tokens the appropriate next ones to pick unless the generating world model predicting those tokens contained a very strange and unique mind within it this was all being filtered through.

Except for the fact that LLMs can only reliably work if they are made to pick the "wrong" (not the most statistically likely) some of the time - the temperature parameter.

If the context window is noisy (as in, high-entropy) enough, any kind of "signal" (coherent text) can emerge.

Also, you know, infinite monkeys.

Sounds like you're anthropomorphising. To you it might not have been the logical response based on its training data, but with the chaos you describe it sounds more like just a statistic.

I've definitely been pretty anti-AI, finding it kinda stupid and generally useless...

...but we hired an AI researcher at my work (which I laughed at). But I cannot deny anymore that with the proper setups, configs, rules, blend of onsite / cloud resources etc. - workplace AI can be pretty fucking game changing. To the point where I went from campaigning against the changes because I felt they were a waste of time to where I am worried for my future job and am using agents 5-10 times a day to handle small bugfixes for me.

I don't know what will happen when the bubble pops though.

The problem is that there's basically no way to use it responsibly.

I am occasionally getting hired by vibe coders, to fix their AI's mess. It's not ego. AI is just not smart enough to replace my job, and many others.

My anti-AI rage is caused by the marketing, trying to convince people and investors that AI can do the work of humans with lower cost. Many companies, especially those developing software, fired a large percentage of the work force, and then they were trying to hire them back to fix the AI's shit.

Another reason for my hate is its energy needs. There was another post, that was talking about an estimation on how much energy GPT-5 needs. It's thought that it needs the power of 2 nuclear reactors. This much energy to barely be able to do any job.