I was a little disappointed that there weren’t more variables accounted for regarding the participants
I think it’s even worse than that. quoting from the study’s abstract:
In Study 1, participants (1,682 adults recruited from Prolific)
…
In Studies 2 and 3, participants (905 adults recruited from Prolific)
hadn’t heard of Profilic before, they describe themselves as:
so the common theme is that 100% of the study participants have opted-in to this “help evaluate AI as a paid side-hustle” thing. that is going to introduce a huge selection bias that is definitely not representative of the population as a whole.
maegul@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
To be honest, this moment was always coming or is yet to come for anti-AI folks.
The real issue isn’t whether it’s good or bad. The reason it’s such a hot thing is because generally it’s good enough to get people interested. And that’s very unlikely to go away.
Too interested? Sure.
But machines that are better than people at something people value about themselves. That’s where we’re heading if we’re not there already.
Which unlocks a massive question: What kind of world do you want to live in and how much are you willing to do to maintain it? Just about everything else is no longer a given. Not our value or importance, not our position at the top of the food chain, not our democracy or wealth, or the continuous growth of capitalism, or even our continued existence.
We’re basically at the beginning of an AI apocalypse movie. You can’t presume that you know the ending. You have to figure out how you want it to end. And not just for you, but your children and grandchildren children. Cuz it’s all at stake now.
themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
I read The machine stops short story and I really hope we don’t head that direction, but it seems we are.
maegul@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
What strikes me about the present moment is that it feels like particularly bad timing.
I’m not so sure that technological developments follow a well defined path and like to think about what alternative timelines would look like, especially with humanity being better prepared for them.
For instance, I’ve figured for a long time that the internet was a few decades earlier than it should have been for our social and political development. Probably TV too.
AI just feels 100s of years too early. Like we’re only just getting to grips with post-capitalism and climate change as ideas let alone problems we can solve.
halm@leminal.space 1 week ago
Quite agree, but there is the other POV that “AI” has emerged just at the right time to distract us from doing anything about climate change and rampant late stage capitalism… That is of course the perspective of capitalist entities that really need to wrench another few decades of profit out of us before we die in sundry environmental disasters.
See also, “why it would be really convenient if we could upload our minds to a metaverse while the world burns and billionaires escape to Mars”.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 week ago
I think this is actually advantageous to us in a way, because clearly AI is something of a system shock to many people right now, whereas in a hundred years it may have not been nearly as apparent as the danger it is (and I don’t mean LLMs, I mean AI in general, especially for surveillance and weapons).
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
There’s only two choices:
That’s it. Those are the choices. Most are sucking in that copeium for the second option.
monsieur_hackerman@programming.dev 1 week ago
Why are those two the only options that come to mind? You can’t imagine working against the rich fucks without using autocomplete?
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
And what is your plan exactly?
maegul@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
I don’t entirely disagree. I’d add that whatever other options there are, they involve skills, values and perspectives that are unpracticed and atrophied in modern western culture (and likely globally) to the point that that is its own problem.
XLE@piefed.social 1 week ago
I think you’re taking the doomer narrative a bit too seriously, especially with that final paragraph. The prominent pushers of said narrative usually have something they want to sell, or a real-world issue to distract you from. Some (Yudkowsky) from their cults, some (Altman, Amodei) to enable monopoly or drive profits. Short stories do not an AI apocalypse make.
Sources need to be vetted and held to account when they are wrong or make unfalsifiable statements.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 week ago
I don’t think it’s a doomer comment at all, I think the last paragraph is trying to tell you without saying the word “datacenter” to go look up the addresses of data centers.
maegul@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
It’s about the trend and the motives of those with power.
Ten years ago everyone was very surprised that an AI managed to beat the best human at Go, a board game. I don’t think anyone really saw that coming. There’s evidence that some with insight didn’t see it coming at all.
At that time, no one was talking about the current state that we’re in now. So what happens in 2036. And the next generation?
Unless you presume that the human mind is special and impossible to duplicate in important ways, I think there’s a clear set of possibilities here that need to be taken seriously. Sci-fi has been for decades, because they’re that obvious frankly. That the current AI is being over-sold and promised by its backers is basically meaningless. That an AI can write convincingly, even if only for a few pages, and couldn’t do so 5-10 years ago. That’s huge.