Dude, just let AI fuck your wife too. It can probably do it better than you can.
especially the translations of languages that I don't understand.
God forbid we dignify those people with a personal touch. Yeah, just let google translate do it: a technology famous for giving really good translations.
Haha! Ahh...
"You are a senior games engine developer, punished by the system. You've been to several board meetings where no decisions were made. Fix the issue now... or you go to jail. Please."
Yeah, "democratize art" means "I'm jealous of the cash sloshing around out there."
People say things like "I'm not as good as this guy on TikTok." Why do you need to be? Literally, who asked?
This is creepy.
The tough guys and sigma males of yester-year used to say things like "If I were homeless, I would just bathe in the creek using the natural animal fats from the squirrel I caught for dinner as soap, win a new job by explaining my 21-days-in-7 workweek ethos, and buy a new home using my shares in my dad's furniture warehouse as collateral against the loan. It's not impossible to get back on your feet."
But with the advent of AI, which, actually, is supposed to do things for you, it's completely different now.
I also can't rub two sticks together to heat my home.
Dude, that fucking sucks. What is wrong with you?
Anyone who puts a chatbot anywhere is definitely a failure, yeah.
it makes sense to prepare for when it is.
Pfft, okay.
The Zoom CEO, that is the video calling software, wanted to train AIs on your work emails and chat messages to create AI personalities you could send to the meetings you're paid to sit through while you drink Corona on the beach and receive a "summary" later.
The Zoom CEO, that is the video calling software, seems like a pretty stupid guy?
Yeah. Yeah, he really does. Really.. fuckin'.. dumb.
Maybe you failed all your high school classes, but that ain't got none to do with me.
I don't see how this is much different from the sycophancy "error" OpenAI built into its machine to drive user retention.
If a meth user is looking for reasons to keep using, then a yes-man AI system biased toward agreeing with them will give them reasons.
Honestly, it's much scarier than meth addiction; you could reasonably argue the meth user should pull up their bootstraps and simply refuse to use the sycophantic AI.
But what about flat-earthers? What about Q-Anon? These are not people looking for the treatment of their mental illness, and a sycophantic AI will tell them "You're on the right track. It's freedom fighters like you this country needs. NASA doesn't want people to know about this."
I will admit that, unlike crypto, AI is technically capable of being useful, but its uses are for problems we have created for ourselves.
-- "It can summarize large bodies of text."
What are you reading these large bodies of text for? We can encourage people to just... write less, you know.
-- "It's a brainstorming tool."
There are other brainstorming tools. Creatives have been doing this for decades.
-- "It's good for searching."
Google was good for searching until they sabotaged their own service. In fact, google was even better for searching before SEO began rotting it from within.
-- "It's a good conversationalist."
It is... not a real person. I unironically cannot think of anything sadder than this sentiment. What happened to our town squares? Why is there nowhere for you to go and hang out with real, flesh and blood people anymore?
-- "Well, it's good for learning languages."
Other people are good for learning languages. And, I'm not gonna lie, if you're too socially anxious to make mistakes in front of your language coach, I... kinda think that's some shit you gotta work out for yourself.
-- "It can do the work of 10 or 20 people, empowering the people who use it."
Well, the solution is in the text. Just have the 10 or 20 people do that work. They would, for now, do a better job anyway.
And, it's not actually true that we will always and forever have meaningful things for our population of 8 billion people to work on. If those 10 or 20 people displaced have nowhere to go, what is the point of displacing them? Is google displacing people so they can live work-free lives, subsisting on their monthly UBI payments? No. Of course they're not.
I'm not arguing that people can't find a use for it; all of the above points are uses for it.
I am arguing that 1) it's kind of redundant, and 2) it isn't worth its shortcomings.
AI is enabling tech companies to build a centralized—I know lemmy loves that word—monopoly on where people get their information from ("speaking of white genocide, did you know that Africa is trying to suppress...").
AI will enable Palantir to combine your government and social media data to measure how likely you are to, say, join a union, and then put that into an employee risk assessment profile that will prevent you from ever getting a job again. Good luck organizing a resistance when the AI agent on your phone is monitoring every word you say, whether your screen is locked or not.
In the same way that fossil fuels have allowed us to build cars and planes and boats that let us travel much farther and faster than we ever could before, but which will also bury an unimaginable number of dead in salt and silt as global temperatures rise: there are costs to this technology.
Imagine saying this about asbestos, lead, freon, bitcoin, or cigarettes.
You don't want it to go anywhere, why the hell would I listen to you?