Technology

Developer: Am I out of touch?

No, it's the consumers who are wrong.

I have no qualms about AI being used in products. But when you have to tell me that something is "powered by AI" as if that's your main selling point, then you do not have a good product. Tell me what it does, not how it does it.

If I could have the equivalent of a smart speaker that ran the AI model locally and could interface with other files on the system. I would be interested in buying that.

But I don't need AI in everything in the same way that I don't need Bluetooth in everything. Sometimes a kettle is just a kettle. It is bad enough we're putting screens on fridges.

And workers...

Unsurprisingly. I have use for LLMs and find them helpful, but even I don't see why should we have the copilot button on new keyboards and mice, as well as on the LinkedIn's post input form.

<---Not this cat. I become highly aroused when i hear salespeople gargling out their marketing bullshit

Yeah, baby, lie for me. Mmmm call a LLM "AI" again.

fuck that's hot

Hi, I'm annoying and want to be helpful. Am I helpful? If I repeat the same options again when you've told me I'm not helpful, will that be helpful? I won't remember this conversation once it's ended.

Hi, which option have you told me you already don't want would you like?

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that, please rage again.

For me, if a company fails to make a clear cut case about why a product of theirs needs AI, I'm gonna assume they just want to misuse AI to cheaply deliver a mediocre product instead of putting in the necessary cost of manhours.

I like my AI compartmentalized, I got a bookmark for chatGPT for when i want to ask a question, and then close it. I don't need a different flavor of the same thing everywhere.

Ai is not even truly ai right now, there's no intelligence, it's a statistical model made by training billions of stolen data to spit out the most similar thing to fit the prompt. It can get really creepy because it's very convincing but on closer inspection it has jarring mistakes that trigger uncanny valley shit. Hallucinations is giving it too much credit, maybe when we get AGI in a decade that'll fitting.

It's really simple: There are a number of use cases where generative AI is a legitimate boon. But there are countless more use cases where AI is unnecessary and provides nothing but bloat, maybe novelty at best.

Generative AI is neither the harbinger or doom, nor the savior of humanity. It's a tool. Just a tool. We're just caught in this weird moment where people are acting like it's an all-encompassing multipurpose tool right now instead of understanding it as the limited use specific tool it actually is.

I don't know anyone who is actively looking for products that have "AI".

It's like companies drank their own Kool aid and think because they want AI, so do the consumers. I have no need for AI. My parents don't even understand what it is. I can't imagine Gen Z gives a hoot.

Absolutely, I was pretty upset when Google added Gemini to their Messages app, then excited when the button (that you can't remove) was removed! Now I've updated Messages again and they brought the button back. Why would you ever need an LLM in a texting app?

Edit: and also Snapchat, Instagram, and any other social media app they're shoveling an AI chat bot into for no reason

Edit 2: AND GOOGLE TELLING ME "Try out Gemini!" EVERY TIME I USE GOOGLE ASSISTANT ON MY PHONE!!!!!

AI in consumer devices at this point stands for data harvesting, wonky functionality and questionable usefulness. No wonder nobody wants that crap.

They just don't get it. Once everyone will use AI toilet and AI toothbrush they will sing a different tune.

I've been applying similar thinking to my job search. When I see AI listed in a job description, I immediately put the company into one of 3 categories:

1. It is an AI company that may go out of business suddenly within the next few years leaving me unemployed and possibly without any severance.
2. Management has drank the Kool-Aid and is hoping AI will drive their profit growth, which makes me question management competence. This also has a high likelihood of future job loss, but at least they might pay severance.
3. The buzzword was tossed in to make the company look good to investors, but it is not highly relevant to their business. These companies get a partial pass for me.

A company in the first two categories would need to pay a lot to entice me and I would not value their equity offering. The third category is understandable, especially if the success of AI would threaten their business.

I get AI has its uses but I don’t need my mouse to have any thing AI related (looking at you Logitech).

It's because consumers aren't the dumbasses these companies think they are and we all know that the AI being shoved into everything fucking sucks worse than the systems we had before "AI."