TranscriptTitle text: This is how you all fucking sound

[A smug tech bro wearing a sideways cap, watch, chain around his neck stands in front of a data center by a lake with dead fish. A smoke stack blows pollution into the air]

Tech bro: AI is already here, there’s no going back.

[A smug man in a suit with cigarette in hand stands in a restaurant while two disgruntled diners cough from the smoke]

Suit: Smoking indoors is already here, there’s no going back.

[A smug man in a top hat and suit stands in a factory with two sad and dirty children]

Hat: Child labor is already here, there’s no going back.

[A smug plantation owner stands in front of a field with with two angry slaves]

Plantation owner: The Atlantic Slave trade is already here, there’s no going back.

Still Vreni on Bluesky

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 176 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Thats not how it works.

A better example would be "nuclear arms are already here, theres no going back"

Its not a capitalism thing, its an arms race thing.

Once one country starts making nukes you cant stop everyone from following suit to protect themselves.

Same goes for AI, once one country starts doing it, everyone else is gonna need to keep up so they dont lose the arms race.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 3 months ago* (16 children)

    Yes, but at least at the end of the day you can use nukes to blow stuff up. Presumably your enemies.

    If your enemies win the generative AI "arms" race they can use it to, uh...

    ???

    (Yes, I am aware there are military/governmental applications for neural net learning technologies but they're the types of pattern recognition and signals analysis stuff we already do without needing to build a football stadium sized datacenter every 50 miles and burn the entire nation's GDP on electricity generation. Most of the other applications appear to revolve around a regime using it solely to shoot themselves in the foot, e.g. powering a fantasy army of likely to be highly defective murder robots or using it to propagandize at and spy upon their own population in order to ensure a ready supply of destabilizing internal dissent always exists.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    LLMs are not the final state of AI

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    But LLMs are not the path to the final state of AI, either. And that's assuming only if — and this is a very big "if" — a true general artificial intelligence can even be created using traditional silicon computing methods in the first place. Blithely assuming that it can be is really rather asking past the sale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Yep, by design LLM cannot become 'inteligent', you can only make it more believable but it's still copying humans not really thinking by itself. No amount of development or money invested will change that, it's not a pokemon it won't just evolve into something different one day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    And it's worth reiterating, the current crop of generative "AI" is incapable of producing anything new or novel. All it can do is reassemble existing strings, tokens, and patterns in slightly different ways. Innovation can never come from such a machine. That will have to come from a human.

    The current push is the notion that "hyperscaling," i.e. throwing even more hardware and space and power and money at the same concept, will magically make it something it isn't. Obviously that's not going to work. It'll allow grifters to make a ton of money over it, though!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Such a fallacy. Anything that falls under the umbrella of machine learning will contribute to future AI. We certainly won’t improve LLMs such that they become AGI, but all of it contributes.

    And, whether or not future AI even uses traditional silicon computing is also irrelevant.

    What matters is improved understanding of mathematics, neurons, chemistry, electronics, etc. That all happens each step of the way, even if the next technology is completely different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    They can use it to do a lot of things. AI is far from perfect and makes all sorts of weird mistakes, but so do people. Arguably there's substantially more value in training inexperienced humans to get better in their fields than in settling for AI as a cheap alternative that starts with a maybe slightly higher or similar but cheaper baseline, but that doesn't eliminate all value they create. You can make arguments about the long term benefits socially or for individual organizations that leverage AI, but spend a couple hours playing with Claude and it becomes extremely evident that they're not anything resembling useless.

    Even if we completely throw chat bots out the window, there are some instances of general utility for thinking models. This comic is making a moral argument that's more compelling, but arguing that they're actually totally useless doesn't really reflect reality

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    As someone who's used Claude and most other big LLMs as part of my job, they're all absolutely useless. They don't have the capacity for thought or care, all they are is a word generation algorithm similar to Cleverbot. So you can't rely on them for useful information, you can't rely on them for remembering info you told them, half the time it feels like talking to a brick wall (because you essentially are), and their only actual value is to CEOs as something they can blame layoffs on, even when it's bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    What do you use them for? I use them day to day for significant automation hooked into a rag tool and several custom mcp services. They are absolutely amazing but with some serious flaws that do require significant guard rails and human in the loop points.
    They are obviously over hyped and being used as an excuse by shitty CEOs but to call them useless is a mistake I think

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Sorry, I’m curious: what’s your workflow looking like when you’re dealing with LLMs?

    Because I‘m just tinkering with them as a hobby and while I consider them erratic and certainly limited in many regards, I still find them useful. Even fun, but on the other hand I’m not forced to use them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    I'm with you: the experiences people have with these tools are just dramatically different from mine. They are quite good. By no means even close to perfect, but they're just so much faster than me at pulling up some random information that would be hard to find with an Internet search myself and very good at going from nothing to something that works with code. I don't particularly enjoy using them because I find the whole industry abhorrent, but their usefulness isn't in question to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (13 replies)
  • [–] 30 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    Except 90% of what people talk about when they refer to AI is LLMs which have no direct military applications other than vague productivity boost claims. You could say the same thing about sending kids to the mines, “our society is more productive sending kids to dig out coal instead of playing. If we don’t send our kids to the mines China will and then we’ll really be behind”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    ... no I am talking about actual AI as a field as a whole, not just LLMs...

    Yall forgetting about Boston dynamics or something?

    We got fuckin guns strapped to the back of autonomous robot dogs that can run at over 60 km/h

    We got autonomous drones with facial recognition that can fly through dense forests at 90 km/h+

    The fuck you think Im talking about lol...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Are you conflating robotics with intelligence?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    The AI "arms race" as you put it is absolutely capitalism at its core. Replace humans with shitty robots so they don't have to continue paying wages to actual humans. Its just the the first person that makes it work will be able to set the rules for the ones that follow. Getting paid for those rules and making further entrenched in capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    The frustrating part is that we could be on the precipice of an amazing time. We could be in a space where it makes sense to dump tons of resources into rapidly progressing automation because it would enable people to finally stop doing tedious labor.

    But a combination of our inability to demand collective ownership of these systems and a similar disdain for social welfare means the prospect is instead terrifying. We need to continue to allow people to work cash registers for well below livable wages because otherwise they’ll starve.

    There is an alternate reality where the end result of AI is that people are just free to live how they want, to socialize, to explore art and novel ideas within their passion, engage in social supports, etc. but instead we will continue to prop up the need for mind numbing and tedious labor out of a fear of homelessness because collectivism is scary and bad

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I think we may very well be on the precipice of the world you imagine, or something like it. But the old world dies hard and takes effort to abolish. We didn't get where we are because we were given what we have - we fought for it. I think we're seeing the beginning stages of people demanding that the benefits of AI and automation flow to them, rather than to just the elite. Won't be without pain, but I think we get there. Partly because we kind of have to. People get over their fear of socialism and collectivism really fast when they get desperate yet there's people making huge piles of money off the automation that stole their job. I can't say for sure what the future looks like, but I don't think we stay locked here forever. To think so is to look at the situation during the first gilded age and say nothing can change. Well, it did and we got the progressive age.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (13 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Once one country starts making nukes you cant stop everyone from following suit to protect themselves.

    Except we did stop. We ended nuclear testing. We downsized our arsenal. We never deployed the high yield, neutron bombs, or other "tactical" variants in subsequent wars. And neither did the French or the Russians or the Chinese. Or even the Israelis.

    Our nuclear program is derelict. It belongs in a museum. There's an outstanding question as to how many of the bombs currently in circulation are duds.

    Unlike with the F-35 or the Bradley Fighting Vehicle or the Predator Drone or even the Virginia class submarine, we're just not putting any more money into nuclear proliferation and improved first strike capabilities like we were 60 years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Mutually Asssured Destruction is an easily technolngically achievable goal, that's why we don't see much development past that point. You only need to exterminate an enemy's population once.

    The lesson learned by the world, at this point, is that nukes are the only way to guarantee your country isn't invaded and that agreeing to unilateral nuclear disamament is downright idiotic. Expect more countries gettng nukes this century.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Even before there was an atomic weapon, the utility, the effectiveness, of atomic weapons was never in doubt.

    "AI" isn't like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    pushes glasses up um actually the usefulness of AI has never been in doubt, we've been using it for years, what actually isn't like that is specificly generative AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    We've been calling the good stuff "machine learning" since forever, and we've overwhelmingly been calling the new generative stuff "AI," however inadvisable that may be. If we can just stop insisting that machine learning is AI, actually, we'll have no trouble of this kind. This is an unforced error, it's just muddying the waters for no benefit at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    It would also apply to child labour and slavery. We may have outlawed it locally, but that doesn't change the fact that companies who make use of it will be at an advantage, so we just ended up outsourcing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)