529
Only 16 percent of Americans think AI will have a positive impact on society, a new study shows (techcrunch.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I sense a "we can't let Chy-na get there first" type of argument, but I may be wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    It's more of a "Don't confuse science with business" kind of argument.

    Looking at neural network-based machine learning as being made up of only commercial LLM services and then condemning an entire field of research is short-sighed at best. The people profiting off of LLMs, stealing data, building data centers and buying up the world's supply of computer hardware are not the scientists and researchers, it's the rich capitalists who're trying to buy monopoly powers using their excessive piles of wealth.

    There's more to machine learning than ChatGPT, but you couldn't tell that by reading the social media hot takes.

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

    Then go the hell on do your AI science. If it works then it works. Go build an AI that's more than a speculation bubble and can actually help people instead of throwing us into nightmare hell world.

    Who is stopping you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Probably because the scientists FauxLiving's taking about are paid by the capitalists to make the problem-causing machines. The only way for them to continue working is to not address their employers.

    And for the scientists trying to make the pure wholesome science AI, every advance (like cancer cell spotting) is overshadowed by a bigger issue like de-skilling the people who have to do the training, or worse (like an LLM rejecting people's insurance and a chance to even see that deskilled doctor)

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

    There's more to machine learning than ChatGPT, but you couldn't tell that by reading the social media hot takes.

    No disagreement here. But I think you're taking people's words a little too literally.

    When people say they hate the "AI" at work, that they don't want "AI" crammed into everything and they don't want "AI" data centres to jack up their neighbourhood's water and energy costs, they are actually talking about LLMs. Nobody is objecting to the TTS/STT engine on their phones, to pattern-based threat recognition online or to cancer-spotting computer vision models in modern medicine. Nobody wants to stop or even ban machine learning as a whole. They just use the broad term "AI" for the much narrower AI subclass of LLMs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    No disagreement here. But I think you’re taking people’s words a little too literally.

    I know they mean LLMs and diffusion models mostly, but those same people show up in other threads about AI (like, recently, JEPA models) with the same negative attitude despite it being a research project and not a commercial project. This misconception is leading to machine learning research topics catching strays.

    I know my response isn't going to be popular, nuance isn't something people like being faced with in their quest for outrage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent