5 ms·

AI seems to elicit a different response from people than any other debate I can remember. It's different to blockchain (which had a similar level of "will you a

AI seems to elicit a different response from people than any other debate I can remember. It's different to blockchain (which had a similar level of "will you all just shut the fuck up about it?") It's different to culture war stuff (which was very toxic and hard to have sensible discussions about - but in a different way). It's the only topic in my lifetime where I have to remember not to even mention it to several close friends. And these are geeky people I have a lot of shared interests in common with. I'm over 50 and I remember a lot of controversial topics - but this one is weird in a different way.

mdaniel 1y ago
IMHO, if bitcoin mining had given some people $10MM and debited other people $10, but each one at random, no matter what --temperature= was provided to the mining CLI, you'd have likely seen the same discussion > It's making me rich! It's making me poor! Well then you're holding it wrong! Well you're spending electricity on senseless compute! Well you're just living in a fiat past! (nod)
- andybak 1y ago
  One thing I think is pertinent - I don't think many people currently have been made poorer by AI. I'm not disputing many people think it's an imminent risk - but I think the number of people directly affected financially in a negative way is currently vanishingly small.
  - mirekrusin 1y ago
    It made stack overflow poorer.
  - mdaniel 1y ago
    That's only true if one or both of these things is true in your experience: 1. opportunity cost isn't real 1. the ${whatever amount}/${some time} subscription cost to any one of the 15+ of the AI offerings isn't financially affecting That latter one is of especial interest to me because quite a few of the "you're holding it wrong" arguments devolve into "well, you just don't have the Platnium X99 Plus latest awesomesauce, and if you did then it'd solve the P-NP problem for you, too"
happytoexplain 1y ago
To oversimplify: Because it's real.
- tines 1y ago
  More like, because it's pleasurable enough that people will accept it as a substitute for the real. Delusional people are marrying their AIs, for example.
  - queenkjuul 1y ago
    Based on my experience with Claude Code so far, my coworkers mostly use it because they think it's fun, or cool, not because it writes great code or saves tons of time, because i can attest it isn't doing those. I'm not saying it isn't useful, I'm just also seeing lots of crappy output that gets totally rewritten, and useless docs people keep creating for some reason, that is eating all the time they supposedly saved by relying on it in the first place.
vouaobrasil 1y ago
It is because it is a direct attack against human creativity. It separates people into two very disparate classes: those who want to use and develop it to become more efficient and rich, and those who hate it with a passion because for them, it takes away the beauty of humanity at the forefront of creativity. Unlike blockchain, the philosophy and morality of these two classes, one represented by efficiency and one represented by human passion, are diametrically opposed in every respect.
- andybak 1y ago
  OK - so I deeply value human creativity and I disagree with your first statement. At least I think we don't currently know whether it will work out this way. My hunch is that human creativity is incredibly resilient and will route around damage. (But employability in creative professions? That's a slightly different topic - an orthogonal one strictly speaking)
  - vouaobrasil 1y ago
    I think we already do, at least for many people. AI-generated stuff reduces the value that humans put on human creation because human-only creation is harder to find. AI takes the joy of discovery out of many processes and activities. It's of course harder to get jobs in creative fields now such as translation and graphic design. It's a devaluing of creativity and it's discouraging to quite a few creatives. The very fact that many artists already feel depressed about AI is already itself a huge negative impact on creativity. I can't tell you how many people have told me how depressed they are about AI and how they have less impetus to create things. Although one can certainly do it still for joy, it's harder for many in an environment that is so ruthless.
    - PaulHoule 1y ago
      On top of "hard to find" I think it also displaces the market for real art, there are lots of blogs (or splogs?) like this one that are full of AI slop art, like this one https://zxonline.net/from-bytes-to-billions-how-the-zx-spectrum-laid-the-foundations-of-modern-algorithms/ https://zxonline.net/from-bytes-to-billions-how-the-zx-spect... maybe the whole article is AI generated, but the second image from the top is just awful. If people get the idea that crap like that is acceptable, how can anybody sell real work? This blog post is legit https://frankonfraud.com/sms-blasters-the-fraud-machine-anyone-can-buy-online/ https://frankonfraud.com/sms-blasters-the-fraud-machine-anyo... so far as I can tell and the AI generated image on it is actually pretty funny and it really problematizes the idea that you could sell art to that kind of market.
jplusequalt 1y ago
I think for many people, the real debate taking place has nothing to do with the specific technology, and instead has everything to do with labor. Depending on who you speak to, AI presents itself as the biggest automation risk to the largest number of workers in human history. This has spurred a new wave of conscious thought about labor among many people, particularly young workers trying to enter the workforce, and creatives who are seeing their art turned against them. This is a big moment in the west, as for the last 50+ years, the powers that be have done everything in their power to suppress labor movements and erode class consciousness among their populations. Therefor, many people are not used to dealing with the fact that we're all expendable, that the American Dream never existed, etc., and it's a raw topic that makes certain people (understandably) frustrated to grapple with.
- andybak 1y ago
  Maybe it's because it's threatening people that aren't used to being potentially powerless in this way. And those are the kind of people I tend to interact with. I didn't spend much time chatting to people working in heavy industry in the 80s or manufacturing in the 90s. Maybe I should have done.
crazygringo 1y ago
Completely agreed. Also literally the only topic I've ever had to avoid with friends. It's not just that we can good-naturedly agree to disagree (like we can with religion, politics, etc.), but they are allergic to even the mention of it. It is something they very actively want to not talk about, which I've never experienced before. You're right that it's weird in a different way, and I still can't quite put my finger on why.
amelius 1y ago
This technology promises to turn us into human cows. What do you expect?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

mdaniel 1y ago

IMHO, if bitcoin mining had given some people $10MM and debited other people $10, but each one at random, no matter what --temperature= was provided to the mining CLI, you'd have likely seen the same discussion > It's making me rich! It's making me poor! Well then you're holding it wrong! Well you're spending electricity on senseless compute! Well you're just living in a fiat past! (nod)

andybak 1y ago
One thing I think is pertinent - I don't think many people currently have been made poorer by AI. I'm not disputing many people think it's an imminent risk - but I think the number of people directly affected financially in a negative way is currently vanishingly small.
- mirekrusin 1y ago
  It made stack overflow poorer.
- mdaniel 1y ago
  That's only true if one or both of these things is true in your experience: 1. opportunity cost isn't real 1. the ${whatever amount}/${some time} subscription cost to any one of the 15+ of the AI offerings isn't financially affecting That latter one is of especial interest to me because quite a few of the "you're holding it wrong" arguments devolve into "well, you just don't have the Platnium X99 Plus latest awesomesauce, and if you did then it'd solve the P-NP problem for you, too"

happytoexplain 1y ago

To oversimplify: Because it's real.

tines 1y ago
More like, because it's pleasurable enough that people will accept it as a substitute for the real. Delusional people are marrying their AIs, for example.
- queenkjuul 1y ago
  Based on my experience with Claude Code so far, my coworkers mostly use it because they think it's fun, or cool, not because it writes great code or saves tons of time, because i can attest it isn't doing those. I'm not saying it isn't useful, I'm just also seeing lots of crappy output that gets totally rewritten, and useless docs people keep creating for some reason, that is eating all the time they supposedly saved by relying on it in the first place.

vouaobrasil 1y ago

It is because it is a direct attack against human creativity. It separates people into two very disparate classes: those who want to use and develop it to become more efficient and rich, and those who hate it with a passion because for them, it takes away the beauty of humanity at the forefront of creativity. Unlike blockchain, the philosophy and morality of these two classes, one represented by efficiency and one represented by human passion, are diametrically opposed in every respect.

andybak 1y ago
OK - so I deeply value human creativity and I disagree with your first statement. At least I think we don't currently know whether it will work out this way. My hunch is that human creativity is incredibly resilient and will route around damage. (But employability in creative professions? That's a slightly different topic - an orthogonal one strictly speaking)
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  I think we already do, at least for many people. AI-generated stuff reduces the value that humans put on human creation because human-only creation is harder to find. AI takes the joy of discovery out of many processes and activities. It's of course harder to get jobs in creative fields now such as translation and graphic design. It's a devaluing of creativity and it's discouraging to quite a few creatives. The very fact that many artists already feel depressed about AI is already itself a huge negative impact on creativity. I can't tell you how many people have told me how depressed they are about AI and how they have less impetus to create things. Although one can certainly do it still for joy, it's harder for many in an environment that is so ruthless.
  - PaulHoule 1y ago
    On top of "hard to find" I think it also displaces the market for real art, there are lots of blogs (or splogs?) like this one that are full of AI slop art, like this one https://zxonline.net/from-bytes-to-billions-how-the-zx-spectrum-laid-the-foundations-of-modern-algorithms/ https://zxonline.net/from-bytes-to-billions-how-the-zx-spect... maybe the whole article is AI generated, but the second image from the top is just awful. If people get the idea that crap like that is acceptable, how can anybody sell real work? This blog post is legit https://frankonfraud.com/sms-blasters-the-fraud-machine-anyone-can-buy-online/ https://frankonfraud.com/sms-blasters-the-fraud-machine-anyo... so far as I can tell and the AI generated image on it is actually pretty funny and it really problematizes the idea that you could sell art to that kind of market.

jplusequalt 1y ago

I think for many people, the real debate taking place has nothing to do with the specific technology, and instead has everything to do with labor. Depending on who you speak to, AI presents itself as the biggest automation risk to the largest number of workers in human history. This has spurred a new wave of conscious thought about labor among many people, particularly young workers trying to enter the workforce, and creatives who are seeing their art turned against them. This is a big moment in the west, as for the last 50+ years, the powers that be have done everything in their power to suppress labor movements and erode class consciousness among their populations. Therefor, many people are not used to dealing with the fact that we're all expendable, that the American Dream never existed, etc., and it's a raw topic that makes certain people (understandably) frustrated to grapple with.

andybak 1y ago
Maybe it's because it's threatening people that aren't used to being potentially powerless in this way. And those are the kind of people I tend to interact with. I didn't spend much time chatting to people working in heavy industry in the 80s or manufacturing in the 90s. Maybe I should have done.

crazygringo 1y ago

Completely agreed. Also literally the only topic I've ever had to avoid with friends. It's not just that we can good-naturedly agree to disagree (like we can with religion, politics, etc.), but they are allergic to even the mention of it. It is something they very actively want to not talk about, which I've never experienced before. You're right that it's weird in a different way, and I still can't quite put my finger on why.

amelius 1y ago

This technology promises to turn us into human cows. What do you expect?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]