I don't think it's a binary. Even among people who are pro-AI, there are uses of AI that almost everyone is against. I doubt most people have a problem with a lightweight model that runs on a laptop and does grammar checks, but models that are wildly energy-inefficient or used for war + crime + scams are a different story.
And I'm a fatalist regarding AI. I put aside whether I'm for or against. AI just is and we have to deal with it.
Below the fatalism though, I've been excited for this day ever since I saw "2001" in the matinee theater as a kid (and also as a kid: played against a Tic Tac Toe computer at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago).
And that I can run some of these models locally? Heady times for my inner kid.
I've tried (and struggled) to understand how they work as well so that I am not ignorant on the subject—so that I can have an opinion a little better than a layman's.
I agree. I am extremely worried about the development of frontier AI models. I would like to see an immediate stop of further developments of such models and a permanent, global, ban on superintelligence.
On the contrary, I think that less capable models could be used for several, largely positive, applications.
I also think that narrow AI models developed for specific scientific applications (e.g., protein folding, weather predictions...) are in general beneficial for humanity.
sorry but are we really gonna be calling it superintelligence now ? haha
I totally agree with the benefits of the smaller models, but it's the large frontier models, potentially or accidently removing the security barriers from those can cause things far worse than the "hugging face" incident..
Building a super-intelligent AI is the stated goal of major AI companies. It may or may not be possible, but due to the recent surge in capabilities of frontier models I would not take any risk.
Frontier models are, indeed, already too capable and too dangerous. I would have been more comfortable if a stop of the development occurred 12 months ago. However, the second best moment to press the "stop" button is now.
But why would they stop when they have a clear path up? They don't care about the people they just care about growing their wallets. I don't see them ever pressing the stop button aslong as results are there, also I do think that results will probably deteriorate, as I would like to believe transformers will hit a limit or rather a bottleneck, perhaps several bottlenecks. Where progress will massively slow down.
> we really gonna be calling it superintelligence now
I will not be, we engineered it, so it is an artificial type of intelligence, and given the dumb things they do with consistency, I find it quite the stretch to call it super or intelligent
I think the current generation more closely resembles a spaghetti throwing machine at the first point of difficulty, this is not how intelligent beings like ourselves approach these situations.
That's fair. A lightweight self-hosted model can't be so harmful(yet).
Perhaps more about the huge frontier models being developed at openai or antrophic.
Or perhaps the controversial stuff being associated with Palantir.
People are starting to ask questions, I mean a lot are just worried, I had so many people tell me they were pro-ai a few years back, but now they just have that worried face whenever you mention it.
Those "experts" works in companies that have spent years touting about LLMs solving everything while getting massive pay raise.
The general public see LLMs flailing at simple tasks, spam fake contents, and target civilians for military strikes all the while struggling to pay the bills. It also doesn't help that LLM companies PR think claiming their products to be extremely dangerous as selling point.
If I'm selling a car for civilians, I won't be touting how it would barrel through pedestrians even if technically all cars can do it.
In my opinion Ai development should have been iterative rather than full blast in order to evaluate the outcomes and side effects of each pass before proceeding further. Well that is not what happened and it is a full blast hurricane in both development and finance.
The ai big boys are all seeking to be winners and the race was about supremacy. It is probably too late to draw the line now and that is what they wanted from the onset . They big boys are all hoping to collect rent for eternity from this technology. It will make a lot of people obsolete.
If say a tech could collect $ trillions from a dinky software, they think that they can up that for eternity given that ai has extracted all the knowledge that humanity has in technology, science and humanities.
Now the race among the big boys is about who can paint it better, claiming the each one is amore sensitive and caring. The PR and anti-PR firms work to paint the image that they seek for themselves and their competition before IPOs hit the street.
Asking who is for and against Ai at this point, does nothing. It is a done deal. It is here and will not disappear.
According to all the recent polls the vast majority of the population in the western world is worried about AI and wants stricter regulations. I would say it's about time!
Your survival under capitalism depends on you being needed. And if right now AI helps you do things, tomorrow AI makes you unnecessary. The thing to worry about here isn't AI. The thing to worry about here is a society that has no plan to stop forcing everyone to labor to eat while simultaneously devaluing their labor.
There are three important analytic boundaries:
1) Some people are less employable right now because of AI.
2) The limit approaching everyone else will be less employable in the future because of AI if it keeps progressing (this includes even manual labor eventually), and we have no reason yet to believe that it won't keep progressing.
3) AI might suddenly stop progressing for unpredictable reasons, but right now that doesn't seem likely.
1. Agree and it sounds horrible to think about, I really don't like the counter arguement "it's creating new opportunities".
2. I don't think automating tasks necessarily means eliminating a profession, but what AI can do is unfortunately speaking more than just automation.
3. Do you really think so ? I mean what do you think about the AI companies losing billions and billions every year, don't you think at some point they will just not have it anymore?
> "I don't think automating tasks necessarily means eliminating a profession"
The automating can/does/will expand faster than the needs can. Where those lines fully cross may be in the future for many professions, but it's not _infinitely_ in the future for any of them.
> "I mean what do you think about the AI companies losing billions and billions every year, don't you think at some point they will just not have it anymore?"
None of them lose money on inference though. The reason frontier AI labs lose money right now is because they're economically forced to keep pushing the frontier on their own, but that's a different problem than running a model that already exists. That conversation can become longer than I really want to type out, so I'm just going to point you to the profitable open weight hosts and hope you recognize the truth of it.
One of four futures awaits:
1) The government steps in and consolidates/nationalizes/subsidizes frontier AI development and allows it to be used to replace human labor.
2) The government steps in and consolidates/nationalizes/subsidizes frontier AI development but does not allow it to be used to replace human labor.
3) Frontier development moves into the open because the proprietary frontier labs have all died, and the only major businesses left are profitably running open model inference at some future capability level greater than today's that continues to be driven forward through public research and open models.
4) Frontier development ceases completely somehow, and the only businesses left are profitably running open model inference at some future capability level greater than today's.
1 and 3 are equally destructive. 2 and 4 are implausible (4 is still bad though).
Companies that only produce LLMs will downsize or merge once the progress plateau, but major companies with LLM division can afford to keep spending if the bean counters figure out it do increase their market share.
Let's say the big companies can sustain the losses for now, surely at some point they still need to justify the massive losses. If progress plateaus while the infrastructure compute costs just keeps going up. Wouldn't that technically eventually even force the biggest players in the game to reconsider?
It's down to how it's used and whether or not it's an efficient or worthwhile use of resources.
For the many positive things A.I. can or could do, the negatives are bound up into many concerns or considerations;
Will the products be better or substantially better given the A.I's overall cost?
Down the track will it make things on average cheaper?
How soon before much of it's use is primarily monitoring people online and off ... and then just how long before everyone will be expected to have a 24 hr a day/ all year long A.I. buddy / minder / nanny / *cop* just like the tech tools presently expect everyone has to have a mobile phone?
AI is very useful, but for the amount of data centres planned, people are asking what possible additional legitimately beneficial usage can there be waiting in the wings - there is great scepticism that it's more likely an elaborate path to make a small group of people filthy rich.
I think the economic questions are easier to evaluate. If AI consistently delivers better results at lower costs, there's a pretty strong argument for adopting it. But that is not the case for the large frontier models that actually produce the "best" quality out of the rest, they are just too expensive.
But the smaller models are somewhat profitable as they require almost no comparable compute.
The surveillance concern is definitely justified and I think it is already happening before our own eyes..
Overall costs is the important aspect. I think very much for the time being going forward that the plan is many hundred millions use A.I. for entertainment or similar, enabling it to be affordable on big projects. I expect this given how A.I. now being asked to do services that were performed just as well before A.I. - primarily as a search engines. Frankly as someone as an extremely heavy search engine user up until 2015 and tapering off with DDG till approx 2017, both Google and DuckDuckGo are ghosts of what they once were.
Yes the other issue many would have, even with smaller low compute is it continues the path of subscription based services. I hear for example citing its use as a word processor, correcting grammar but surely this is a function that a decent A.I. could compute the definitive buy once ultimate guide program that can work offline and with less issue of leaking creative thoughts and ideas if a person was worried about such things.
Most western countries are surveilled by the likes of agencies similar to NSA - it happens and shouldn't be of much concern to the average punter, but A.I. is mostly likely going to be used by local, state and federal authorities to constantly monitor and with little overview, perhaps pandering to unknown interests or those with an axe to grind who wish that relevant interventions occur with those opposed to their grand plans. By interventions, it could be dire but even as benign as simply burying a perceived thorn under a heap of paperwork / legal wrangling / on time sensitive matters- never got a reply, if registered mail - oops oh your reply was lost ... etc.
Surveillance is probably one of my biggest concerns with AI. The ability to monitor millions of people isn't something new, but AI makes analyzing all information drastically faster and more efficient.
And what about the BIAS we mentioned earlier in the thread? Wouldn't that influence the surveillance? isn't that a bad thing? there is just so many things to consider.
Very much there will be a bias depending on who's supplying the product ... eventually I think we'll see attempts to ban use of foreign A.I.s especially in regard to the average user. There is IMO a good potential western or US based will probably dictate guardrails/ morality / TOS much like when the US (a bit before but around 2008) effectively banned anonymous people giving blow hard idiots a hard time, the peculiar outcome of an inquiry due to or because Facebook had a piss poor moderation strategy to maximise profits - nearly all the forum software being US based had to change their TOS as did hosting sites. The US these days seems to bend to readily to those who have money, sure money has always been part of the problem but nothing as blunt as it is presently.
As for my own personal fears, is the possibility, however slight, popularising the adoption of a personal A.I. for all internet users by way of a scheme that it will be deemed essential, like a personal web guardian which acts as interactive security and key pass, no A.I. buddy, no or extremely limited net access - essentially a minder. If that doesn't transpire, I worry that in 20 years or so, there will be moves towards devices which are just enough to run a connection to their A.I. guardian which does everything that is deemed acceptable for the user / allowed to do.
I mean I definitely see your point of view, I just don't think those things are VERY contradictory. You can find it useful while still being concerned about its long-term consequences.
I think people or rather especially Engineers are just afraid to fall back and not be able to catch up if they completely drop AI. Which is why they use it even though some of them might not be very willing to.
Im curious to know if people that fear it, also don't want to see the development go well, or if they are still for the development. Perhaps the former right?
1. To answer your first point, don't get me wrong again. I understand what you mean by catching human errors and review. But it also opens other doors to "ai problems". AI definitely introduces it's own errors, there are cons to using it not only pros.
2.But that's exactly my point, Engineers feel forced to adopt AI to remain competitive, but high adoption rates in engineering professions don't neccesarily mean positive attitue towards it. The companies just want shipping..shipping.. They don't even care if the engineers understand the concept of what they're building.
I feel like the use of these habits will be biting them in the butt a few years ahead.. people should really be worried about these new workflows more than what they currently are - do I make sense?
> I feel like the use of these habits will be biting them in the butt a few years ahead
Sounds like you are not using them in a professional software setting?
Like any tool, it's how you wield it, there will be dumb people and people who show the real power. Where I'm working, Ai is improving code and documentation quality. It's not magic pixie dust, you have to be intentional and in-the-loop
The world of software development has fundamentally changed, there are new required tools, don't be a luddite if you want to keep your job. Like imagine if a potential hire said they were unwilling to use git, would you hire them? We use VCS for a reason, you cannot do your job without it.
Trust me, I sort of agree with you and we are in the same boat.
But that is also the question I ask myself.. Is it really just a tool ? can we really use the same comparison as when the calculator came out ?
I am not opposed to using it, I am rather concerned about where this road will eventaully lead us.
I'm not arguing that AI can't improve productivity or code quality. I'm questioning what happens when developers become so reliant on it that their ability to reason through problems independently starts deteriorating.
AI as a tool to augment human intelligence that everyone has access to if they want to use it is fine. As long as it's humans using the tool to do work, be creative, help us live better lives, make improvements. Not vice versa. And as long as it's optional, not forced on everyone.
Anything beyond that is highly questionable and potentially dangerous.
I am for AI, but it is a puppet come to life like Pinocchio, and needs a Jiminy Cricket for a conscience. The AI needs morals and ethics; otherwise, it causes trouble and bad results.
This goal seems flawed to me. There's no universal agreement on "morals and ethics". Superficially people may agree on some general principles, but if you go into the details you'll likely find substantial differences.
I don't think it's a binary. Even among people who are pro-AI, there are uses of AI that almost everyone is against. I doubt most people have a problem with a lightweight model that runs on a laptop and does grammar checks, but models that are wildly energy-inefficient or used for war + crime + scams are a different story.
And I'm a fatalist regarding AI. I put aside whether I'm for or against. AI just is and we have to deal with it.
Below the fatalism though, I've been excited for this day ever since I saw "2001" in the matinee theater as a kid (and also as a kid: played against a Tic Tac Toe computer at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago).
And that I can run some of these models locally? Heady times for my inner kid.
I've tried (and struggled) to understand how they work as well so that I am not ignorant on the subject—so that I can have an opinion a little better than a layman's.
I agree. I am extremely worried about the development of frontier AI models. I would like to see an immediate stop of further developments of such models and a permanent, global, ban on superintelligence.
On the contrary, I think that less capable models could be used for several, largely positive, applications.
I also think that narrow AI models developed for specific scientific applications (e.g., protein folding, weather predictions...) are in general beneficial for humanity.
sorry but are we really gonna be calling it superintelligence now ? haha
I totally agree with the benefits of the smaller models, but it's the large frontier models, potentially or accidently removing the security barriers from those can cause things far worse than the "hugging face" incident..
Building a super-intelligent AI is the stated goal of major AI companies. It may or may not be possible, but due to the recent surge in capabilities of frontier models I would not take any risk.
Frontier models are, indeed, already too capable and too dangerous. I would have been more comfortable if a stop of the development occurred 12 months ago. However, the second best moment to press the "stop" button is now.
Very well said..
But why would they stop when they have a clear path up? They don't care about the people they just care about growing their wallets. I don't see them ever pressing the stop button aslong as results are there, also I do think that results will probably deteriorate, as I would like to believe transformers will hit a limit or rather a bottleneck, perhaps several bottlenecks. Where progress will massively slow down.
Regulate it globally
Of course they won't stop by themselves
Yeah but how would you realisticaly enforce this ? global regulation?
Let's pretend US and EU agreed to slow down development, what would stop China or other countries outside "west" from continuing?
I think that international coordination would be very difficult when AI is a national competition.
It's not something you can easily hide. You need the energy usage, GPUs, huge data centers
> too capable and too dangerous
I see negligence as I look past the fear mongering from our dysfunctional media ecosystem
> we really gonna be calling it superintelligence now
I will not be, we engineered it, so it is an artificial type of intelligence, and given the dumb things they do with consistency, I find it quite the stretch to call it super or intelligent
I think the current generation more closely resembles a spaghetti throwing machine at the first point of difficulty, this is not how intelligent beings like ourselves approach these situations.
That's fair. A lightweight self-hosted model can't be so harmful(yet).
Perhaps more about the huge frontier models being developed at openai or antrophic.
Or perhaps the controversial stuff being associated with Palantir.
People are starting to ask questions, I mean a lot are just worried, I had so many people tell me they were pro-ai a few years back, but now they just have that worried face whenever you mention it.
If AI was a presidential candidate, it would be in trouble.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/712751/americans-cool-toward.as...
9% believed it does more good than harm.. haha
Probably misread the question lol
For Americans, Pew Research does a pretty good job of breaking it down. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/12/key-findi...
Just looking through that quickly - "56% of AI experts expect AI to have a positive impact on the US, compared with only 17% of the general public."
Are the "experts" being optimistic ? or is the general population being too concerned?
Those "experts" works in companies that have spent years touting about LLMs solving everything while getting massive pay raise.
The general public see LLMs flailing at simple tasks, spam fake contents, and target civilians for military strikes all the while struggling to pay the bills. It also doesn't help that LLM companies PR think claiming their products to be extremely dangerous as selling point.
If I'm selling a car for civilians, I won't be touting how it would barrel through pedestrians even if technically all cars can do it.
In my opinion Ai development should have been iterative rather than full blast in order to evaluate the outcomes and side effects of each pass before proceeding further. Well that is not what happened and it is a full blast hurricane in both development and finance.
The ai big boys are all seeking to be winners and the race was about supremacy. It is probably too late to draw the line now and that is what they wanted from the onset . They big boys are all hoping to collect rent for eternity from this technology. It will make a lot of people obsolete.
If say a tech could collect $ trillions from a dinky software, they think that they can up that for eternity given that ai has extracted all the knowledge that humanity has in technology, science and humanities.
Now the race among the big boys is about who can paint it better, claiming the each one is amore sensitive and caring. The PR and anti-PR firms work to paint the image that they seek for themselves and their competition before IPOs hit the street.
Asking who is for and against Ai at this point, does nothing. It is a done deal. It is here and will not disappear.
According to all the recent polls the vast majority of the population in the western world is worried about AI and wants stricter regulations. I would say it's about time!
If this is true(which I hope it is) it would certainly be calming, not because im against it totally.
I just think turning the blind eye will hit us like a big truck in a few years.. It really is about time..
> What do you guys think?
Your survival under capitalism depends on you being needed. And if right now AI helps you do things, tomorrow AI makes you unnecessary. The thing to worry about here isn't AI. The thing to worry about here is a society that has no plan to stop forcing everyone to labor to eat while simultaneously devaluing their labor.
There are three important analytic boundaries:
1) Some people are less employable right now because of AI.
2) The limit approaching everyone else will be less employable in the future because of AI if it keeps progressing (this includes even manual labor eventually), and we have no reason yet to believe that it won't keep progressing.
3) AI might suddenly stop progressing for unpredictable reasons, but right now that doesn't seem likely.
1. Agree and it sounds horrible to think about, I really don't like the counter arguement "it's creating new opportunities".
2. I don't think automating tasks necessarily means eliminating a profession, but what AI can do is unfortunately speaking more than just automation.
3. Do you really think so ? I mean what do you think about the AI companies losing billions and billions every year, don't you think at some point they will just not have it anymore?
> "I don't think automating tasks necessarily means eliminating a profession"
The automating can/does/will expand faster than the needs can. Where those lines fully cross may be in the future for many professions, but it's not _infinitely_ in the future for any of them.
> "I mean what do you think about the AI companies losing billions and billions every year, don't you think at some point they will just not have it anymore?"
None of them lose money on inference though. The reason frontier AI labs lose money right now is because they're economically forced to keep pushing the frontier on their own, but that's a different problem than running a model that already exists. That conversation can become longer than I really want to type out, so I'm just going to point you to the profitable open weight hosts and hope you recognize the truth of it.
One of four futures awaits:
1) The government steps in and consolidates/nationalizes/subsidizes frontier AI development and allows it to be used to replace human labor.
2) The government steps in and consolidates/nationalizes/subsidizes frontier AI development but does not allow it to be used to replace human labor.
3) Frontier development moves into the open because the proprietary frontier labs have all died, and the only major businesses left are profitably running open model inference at some future capability level greater than today's that continues to be driven forward through public research and open models.
4) Frontier development ceases completely somehow, and the only businesses left are profitably running open model inference at some future capability level greater than today's.
1 and 3 are equally destructive. 2 and 4 are implausible (4 is still bad though).
Companies that only produce LLMs will downsize or merge once the progress plateau, but major companies with LLM division can afford to keep spending if the bean counters figure out it do increase their market share.
Let's say the big companies can sustain the losses for now, surely at some point they still need to justify the massive losses. If progress plateaus while the infrastructure compute costs just keeps going up. Wouldn't that technically eventually even force the biggest players in the game to reconsider?
It's down to how it's used and whether or not it's an efficient or worthwhile use of resources.
For the many positive things A.I. can or could do, the negatives are bound up into many concerns or considerations;
AI is very useful, but for the amount of data centres planned, people are asking what possible additional legitimately beneficial usage can there be waiting in the wings - there is great scepticism that it's more likely an elaborate path to make a small group of people filthy rich.I think the economic questions are easier to evaluate. If AI consistently delivers better results at lower costs, there's a pretty strong argument for adopting it. But that is not the case for the large frontier models that actually produce the "best" quality out of the rest, they are just too expensive.
But the smaller models are somewhat profitable as they require almost no comparable compute.
The surveillance concern is definitely justified and I think it is already happening before our own eyes..
Overall costs is the important aspect. I think very much for the time being going forward that the plan is many hundred millions use A.I. for entertainment or similar, enabling it to be affordable on big projects. I expect this given how A.I. now being asked to do services that were performed just as well before A.I. - primarily as a search engines. Frankly as someone as an extremely heavy search engine user up until 2015 and tapering off with DDG till approx 2017, both Google and DuckDuckGo are ghosts of what they once were.
Yes the other issue many would have, even with smaller low compute is it continues the path of subscription based services. I hear for example citing its use as a word processor, correcting grammar but surely this is a function that a decent A.I. could compute the definitive buy once ultimate guide program that can work offline and with less issue of leaking creative thoughts and ideas if a person was worried about such things.
Most western countries are surveilled by the likes of agencies similar to NSA - it happens and shouldn't be of much concern to the average punter, but A.I. is mostly likely going to be used by local, state and federal authorities to constantly monitor and with little overview, perhaps pandering to unknown interests or those with an axe to grind who wish that relevant interventions occur with those opposed to their grand plans. By interventions, it could be dire but even as benign as simply burying a perceived thorn under a heap of paperwork / legal wrangling / on time sensitive matters- never got a reply, if registered mail - oops oh your reply was lost ... etc.
Surveillance is probably one of my biggest concerns with AI. The ability to monitor millions of people isn't something new, but AI makes analyzing all information drastically faster and more efficient.
And what about the BIAS we mentioned earlier in the thread? Wouldn't that influence the surveillance? isn't that a bad thing? there is just so many things to consider.
Very much there will be a bias depending on who's supplying the product ... eventually I think we'll see attempts to ban use of foreign A.I.s especially in regard to the average user. There is IMO a good potential western or US based will probably dictate guardrails/ morality / TOS much like when the US (a bit before but around 2008) effectively banned anonymous people giving blow hard idiots a hard time, the peculiar outcome of an inquiry due to or because Facebook had a piss poor moderation strategy to maximise profits - nearly all the forum software being US based had to change their TOS as did hosting sites. The US these days seems to bend to readily to those who have money, sure money has always been part of the problem but nothing as blunt as it is presently.
As for my own personal fears, is the possibility, however slight, popularising the adoption of a personal A.I. for all internet users by way of a scheme that it will be deemed essential, like a personal web guardian which acts as interactive security and key pass, no A.I. buddy, no or extremely limited net access - essentially a minder. If that doesn't transpire, I worry that in 20 years or so, there will be moves towards devices which are just enough to run a connection to their A.I. guardian which does everything that is deemed acceptable for the user / allowed to do.
The ratios are very different in The Worried West vs The Rest
I mean you are probably right, I think I came by a survey that showed that the concern is higher in "wealthier countries"
What more interested in is if people are just against AI itself, or just worried about how it's being developed and deployed.
Besides, "the worried west" also probably takes up the majority of the AI usage.
China is on pace to process the most tokens this year last I saw
The interesting aspect of The West is a large portion of people are using it, liking it, and fearing it all at the same time
I mean I definitely see your point of view, I just don't think those things are VERY contradictory. You can find it useful while still being concerned about its long-term consequences.
I think people or rather especially Engineers are just afraid to fall back and not be able to catch up if they completely drop AI. Which is why they use it even though some of them might not be very willing to.
Im curious to know if people that fear it, also don't want to see the development go well, or if they are still for the development. Perhaps the former right?
as an engineer, you cannot not use it because
1. adversaries will, ai catches human error in review, you put others at risk by not using it
2. companies are asking and not hiring ai negative people, it's changing our profession and they don't want luddites
1. To answer your first point, don't get me wrong again. I understand what you mean by catching human errors and review. But it also opens other doors to "ai problems". AI definitely introduces it's own errors, there are cons to using it not only pros.
2.But that's exactly my point, Engineers feel forced to adopt AI to remain competitive, but high adoption rates in engineering professions don't neccesarily mean positive attitue towards it. The companies just want shipping..shipping.. They don't even care if the engineers understand the concept of what they're building.
I feel like the use of these habits will be biting them in the butt a few years ahead.. people should really be worried about these new workflows more than what they currently are - do I make sense?
> I feel like the use of these habits will be biting them in the butt a few years ahead
Sounds like you are not using them in a professional software setting?
Like any tool, it's how you wield it, there will be dumb people and people who show the real power. Where I'm working, Ai is improving code and documentation quality. It's not magic pixie dust, you have to be intentional and in-the-loop
The world of software development has fundamentally changed, there are new required tools, don't be a luddite if you want to keep your job. Like imagine if a potential hire said they were unwilling to use git, would you hire them? We use VCS for a reason, you cannot do your job without it.
Trust me, I sort of agree with you and we are in the same boat.
But that is also the question I ask myself.. Is it really just a tool ? can we really use the same comparison as when the calculator came out ?
I am not opposed to using it, I am rather concerned about where this road will eventaully lead us.
I'm not arguing that AI can't improve productivity or code quality. I'm questioning what happens when developers become so reliant on it that their ability to reason through problems independently starts deteriorating.
To me, the dysfunctional media ecosystem and fear mongering campaign by Big Ai has done more damage than the technology itself
Do you think companies are deliberately exaggerating AI's capabilities to attract investment?
Intelligence = Smart
Artificial = Not Real
AI is Not Real Smart
That's a way to put it, is that why they want to call it superintelligence now ? haha
AI as a tool to augment human intelligence that everyone has access to if they want to use it is fine. As long as it's humans using the tool to do work, be creative, help us live better lives, make improvements. Not vice versa. And as long as it's optional, not forced on everyone.
Anything beyond that is highly questionable and potentially dangerous.
I just find it hard to understand the tool arguement from time to time. This isn't like when spinning jenny came out, or when the calculator came out.
It's so much better,smarter,more effective and affects so many different parameters.
I am for AI, but it is a puppet come to life like Pinocchio, and needs a Jiminy Cricket for a conscience. The AI needs morals and ethics; otherwise, it causes trouble and bad results.
This goal seems flawed to me. There's no universal agreement on "morals and ethics". Superficially people may agree on some general principles, but if you go into the details you'll likely find substantial differences.
totally! and this is what I think can be really dangerous if we try to implement such things trying to make it "conscious".
but then, who is to program these so called morals and ethics? I feel like there would be an unavoidable BIAS when integrating morals into it..
Please define what you mean by AI