Ai isn't being used to better society. To improve lives. It's being used to drain and make the Epstein class more undeserved money.
this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
427 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
84847 readers
4568 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It is outrageous what is happening with AI right now, I work for a large company that does contracts with the US government specifically for the VA. Not only did they just lay off a bunch of people but they just announced that we being required to use AI in every step of our workflow and they have decided that AI is so great they now have people who have never a day in their life been coders doing development work. The guy whose job it was to create and manage schedules is now being required to use AI to write code and ship it. These AIs are wrong so so so much its crazy that this is the direction we are going in. If you thought things were bad already its about to get way worse.
I am so deeply sorry to all the vets who will be struggling to get the healthcare that they need because of this. We don't want to do this either but its clear as day they will fire us and replace us with any warm body regardless if that person has actual experience or not. I am looking to leave but the market is complete dog shit and Its been a struggle to get any kind of response for applications.
Development is moving along just fine IMO. It's the application of AI that's out of control.
GUYS, please, we just need to give them one more trillion of moneys and an ocean of fresh water and we will have an AGI next month!!!
Just imagine AI doing all the work for you, while you live a life of leisure as a homeless person!
It’s not AI. It’s LLMs that don’t actually think in any meaningful way. They just repeat what they have ingested. And was most mathematically likely.
That’s why imma pessimist about LLMs doing anything truly revolutionary. They’re another productivity tool to solve problems that shouldn’t exist in the first place and middle-managment loves it for the same fucking reason.
What you're calling AI has somewhat shifted to being called AGI. Either way, the ship has long since set sail and LLMs are lumped under the category of AI. That's what it's called. Usage dictates meaning. It's not an endorsement of the technology. The same way the computer AIs in games are called AI even if they aren't "real AI."
yup. a roided up eliza isn't going to synthesize anything new. they can do some tasks, but it's most certainly not artificial intelligence. and chaining a bunch of eliza's together isn't going to make them smarter (claw etc.,), much less make them reliable and useful.
dont you mean AI peddling is moving too fast, rather than the advancement.
I just saw a video on the first music synthesizer. It was built in 1897, and took up the entire basement of a city-black sized building. It was huge and useless, but it worked. Over the next 75 years, technology improved, until it could fit into a suitcase, and be carried around.
The concept and the tech existed in its basic form, but it wasn't really ready for deployment yet.
I see data centers that way. Technically, they can build it, but it still has too many problems to be truly viable yet. There are too many problems with cost, the environment, the corruption, and that's before considering the impact on society.
In 50 years, maybe we'll have the technology and the public policy to do this right, but right now it seems like we are forcing an inferior system to accommodate something that is too advanced for it. We're getting way ahead of ourselves.
It's like body builder who gets on a bike for the first time, and can't believe how fast his giant muscles can make that bike move, without realizing how out of control it will be at the same time, or how big the crash will be when it finally arrives.
Yeah, well this isn't a democracy where people have a say in what happens in our society. Our feudal elite decides what will happen, so stop complaining.
I don't understand the question and I'm guessing people in the survey may not have either. Moving too fast as in using too many physical resources without first focusing on optimization or "OMG the robots are coming for my job!"? These are very different views on technology that could give the same answer.
Either opinion is valid for "too fast".
Exactly, that's what makes it an uniformative question.
It's all opinion question. They're trying to gather opinions and feelings, not measure quantitative data about each person themselves.
It's just a survey writing thing. A good survey can focus on these subjective issues but produce potentially actionable results. This question is akin to asking do you think food is too spicy?
The glass is only half full (because AI data centers are stealing all of the good drinking water to cool down their grossly huge "machinery").
And meanwhile, consumers have to sell a kidney if they want to upgrade their devices.
No, they are not shoving AI through a funnel in our mouths. We are delusional and this must be normal.
Seems to me like meaningful development isn't moving at all.
I think it went very fast in 4 years and now it plateaued. The only new thing coming out of it is different ways to interact with the same models.
I never saw it go anywhere. I mean its cool and interesting from a technological perspective but I'm yet to see any practical application for normal people. It seems to only make shit worse, while destroying the environment and the economy.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I've got some pessimistic views as to long-term AI concerns
I'm not sure that aligning advanced AI goals with human goals in the long run is a viable problem to solve. We may not be able to achieve Friendly AI. I could believe that.
But I certainly don't think that AI development is "moving too fast". Not really anything to gain in slowing down development. I remember Elon Musk proposing a six-month moratorium on development
that doesn't make any sense, only would be something that you'd want to do if you had an immediate milestone that you believed that there was major risk attached to. In general, either AI is something that you should ban globally because it's too much of an existential risk for humanity, and halt all development and enforce that halt, or you'd like to achieve it as soon as possible. We are not at a point where there is a consensus that that level of unacceptable risk exists and there is a global commitment to enforcing such a global prohibition.
I can believe that there might be an excess of infrastructure development in particular, that we might not have the research side moving as quickly as need be to support that. Like, we might be doing misallocation in buying a lot of specific chips without establishing that those chips are going to provide a worthwhile return. But in terms of the technology advancing...no, can't agree there.
And...let me make it even more concrete. I'd say that there are basically two scenarios:
- We establish that AI
for some definition of AI
is simply too dangerous for humanity to have. In that case, the right path is to ban AI globally. That means that nobody gets it. Some coalition of countries is going to have to be willing to attack anyone who tries developing it. In that case, what we have is effectively an arms control restriction baked into customary international law. It is not optional to participate. And, for all the future of humanity, we need to be willing to enforce that. It means that we need a viable verification protocol to ensure that nobody is developing it, as is normally the case for arms treaties. And everyone has to submit to that verification protocol.
- We don't. In that case, we want to develop AI sooner rather than later.
I am certainly not willing to say that #2 is the "right" scenario and #1 is the "wrong" one. But if we decide on #1, that comes with a lot of things that we need to be doing as a species. It's not just going to be the pre-computer-era status quo persisting, where our limited state of technology was what maintained the situation.
EDIT: I'd also add that, just as that I'm not sure that Friendly AI is a solvable problem, I'm also not sure that it's really viable to have a verification protocol where we can prevent development of AI. Past arms control treaties where I think that verification was likely much easier
it's hard to hide development of major warships under the Washington Naval Treaty, for example, yet there were still parties evading restrictions
were not always successful. #1 comes with its own set of hard problems too. Are parallel compute processors legal? What about their development and production? Under what restrictions are they used? Is it possible to achieve advanced AI using CPUs (my guess is that it likely is)? If so, what new restrictions will need to be placed on use and access to CPUs? How will we identify entities building production facilities to build CPUs and GPUs? Will we need to track all existing CPUs and GPUs, to try to identify entities who might be stockpiling them? How will we monitor what the great stores of those out there now are being used for?
If we go with #1, that also entails a different world from the one that we live in today.
If most are against somethung, how can twice as many feel something else? Isn't most more than half?
Feeling it's too fast and optimist/pessimist aren't mutually exclusive.
While not mutually exclusive, you are limited by the total population of respondents. If 60% of people say it's too fast, then would not it require 120% of that same population to double it?
(Most Americans say AI development is moving too fast) and (twice as many are AI pessimists as AI optimists)
My mistake, thank you for the clarification. I initially interpreted it as the same cohort.
It's awkwardly structured, for sure. I understand the confusion. 🫡
Twice as many are AI pessimists as AI optimists
Let's say there are 10 AI optimists, which means there are 20 AI pessimists. There being more pessimists also tracks with the majority thinking it's moving too fast.
It's simple, Sergey. I think you got it the other way around.
view more: next ›