You must log in or # to comment.
“Their intentions are clearly deeply conflicted, and their intentions are clearly not completely in the best interest of society,” he said. “I mean, they’re obviously CEOs, they’re obviously companies, and obviously they’re advocating for themselves.”
I love this bit. “You can’t trust those CEOs, they’re completely conflicted. Unlike me, I’m just a CEO looking out for society.”
When multiple CEOs start begging for us to treat AI more nicely, you know the resistance is working.
Keep it up. No one wants this. The sooner we pop the bubble, the sooner we can start fixing things.
It’s fun to paint it as “resistance” but it simply people not accepting a piece of shit that doesn’t work for them or improve anything.
It doesn’t matter why people are resisting AI, but not wanting the technology to be adopted because it’s shit is literally resisting it’s implementation.
Fair point but I think you’re overselling the word “resistance” and you know you did.
When you have people actively trying to poison the training data and lobbying to ban AI chat bots and protesting the data centers in droves, that’s resistance.
“Fighting back against your abuser hurts everybody! Stop!”
Shove that leather jacket up your ass.
Brother doesn’t seem to understand this technology they’re pushing is virtually spitting in the face of any creative, you pissed in our Cheerios first.
Aw, poor guy, how awful that must be for him. Won’t someone please think of the poor, marginalized CEOs??
He is paving the road to blame the AI resistance as reason for bursting the bubble.
Fuck off to your private island already.
read the article; it’s not about reasonable criticism but about end of the world AI doomerism. maybe the more relevant critics are the ones who think LLMs are a dead end, not the ones pissing their pants over the robot uprising.
but it’s better for the stock price to just pretend gary marcus et al don’t exist.
If an over the top, “AI will destroy us all” campaign is what’s needed to get people’s eyes on publications and other materials that illustrate its shortcomings and how absolutely unneeded it is in most of its current applications, I will gladly suffer through the histrionics.
The problem with the “AI will destroy us all” take is that it attributes non-existent competence to these techs. I don’t deny it may raise some useful opposition, but it also makes the problem worse on the other end. There will be a good chunk of people who look at the extremes of the claims (useless slop vs doom) and figure that the truth is somewhere in between. They’ll conclude it must be a pretty good technology. This is why some of the AI evangelists themselves have been pushing the doom possibility. “Oh no, it might be just too good. Well, not just yet, don’t worry too much, but it is already so good we’ve started preparing for it,” they claim.
it’s trading one fantasy world for another
Not how I see it.
One is living in a fantasy world where you believe a product that’s good at very specific applications will be the end-all, be-all of technological advancements that will allow corporations to divest themselves of reliance on human work.
The other is using alarmist language to draw attention to the fact that corporations are in the process of cutting out humanity from the fruits of their labor and ability to survive.
Sorry, but in the case of an existential threat to a large portion of humanity, pointing the finger and screaming “Abomination!” is a perfectly acceptable response to me.
what are you apologizing for?
…because I was raised to be polite when having a cordial disagreement with someone?
