I am staunchly anti-hype and a firm "whatevers" on the rest of AI. Like you said, it has its place. The biggest issue I have is that it is being pushed as another dopamine fix. I ain't gonna lie, turning an idea into code in 5 mins is really fucking cool. Unfortunately, its really fucking addictive so I give myself multi-day breaks after a day or two of coding and fucking around with my homelab.

(Tinfoil hat time) If anyone hasn't noticed, there are some clear distinctions between enterprise LLM tools and regular consumer LLM tools. The consumer-grade plans are more prone to random mistakes and forgetfulness. My theory is that more "mistakes" and resulting fixes not only burn more tokens, but also push dopamine levels higher and lower. Aside from coding blatantly obvious security issues, enterprise LLMs are much more reliable.

LLMs are a tools. You solve problems. If an LLM is solving all of your problems, you are the tool.

It's tricky because like in so many other things, nuance is weaponized against the person using nuance.

A politician presents a carefully considered position? An opponent declares it's impossible to know where they stand.

A broadly harmful thing has some potential value if we just pull back on the harmful part? People all-in will seize upon your acknowledgement of specific value as broad endorsement.

In the AI front, if OpenAI and xAI folds up, and maybe Anthropic gets a big dose of humility, and business leaders finally get a sense for what it can't do, there's a chance for a healthy and useful adoption. Right now the nuance isn't as valuable because it advocates for a scale that no one would be objecting to anyway.

Being fully for or against women's rights are absurd positions too. What, you support a woman's right to execute people in the street? (based, but also: no, that would be horrible, terfs and white supremacist women suck).

And yet we can still say that supporting women's rights is good and opposing women's rights is bad. Taking "anti-AI" to mean an opposition to all artificial intelligence, from GPT to calculators, is failing to take people in good faith.

Being entirely anti-AI or entirely pro-AI are both absurd positions.

They're also, largely, strawmen.

Main place I have used it is in the job I just quit to do tasks that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Sure, AI can fill in this bullshit form that HR make me fill out every month, but why do I have to do this stupid box ticking exercise in the first place? Nothing useful ever came out of it.

CEO loved AI, by his words he used it for multiple hours per day. Wtf is he even employed for then?

Completely agree. With regulation and common sense AI could do positive things. Like in medicine. However, we don't do things that way do we?

AI mod is just defending itself, options are slim without an algorythm to manipulate

How brave

Feddit.uk has a rule against posting ai so those who support it cannot post on our comms.