11 ms·
Stanford report highlights growing disconnect between AI insiders and everyone
- gcheong 6mo ago"Make something people want" seems so quaint now.
- MaysonL 6mo ago“Make people want something, and sell it to them”.
- bit1993 6mo ago"Make something investors want" is the name of the game now and the reason for the disconnect.
- sph 6mo agoAlways has been since the ZIRP era. The ‘make something people want’ phrase was coined by a famous Silicon Valley investor. I heard he runs a popular forum.
- jjulius 6mo ago>... with Gen Z reportedly leading the way... The kids are alright.
- phainopepla2 6mo agoThey've been saying that since the Boomers were kids, look where that led us
- rootusrootus 6mo agoI'm biased, but I think Gen X turned out okay ;-).
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- abcde666777 6mo agoI'm also biased, but I think millenials turned out okay ;).
- rootusrootus 6mo agoIn all seriousness, I agree. Millenials got a lot of crap, but by the numbers they look pretty successful to me.
- troupo 6mo agoAs a geriatric millenial[1] myself, I approve this message :) [1] https://fortune.com/2024/04/23/four-types-millennials-geriatric-great-recession-peak-cusper-microgenerations/ https://fortune.com/2024/04/23/four-types-millennials-geriat...
- georgemcbay 6mo ago> I'm biased, but I think Gen X turned out okay As a Gen Xer myself (1973) I disagree. The widest margin of Trump voters by generation was Gen X. Gen X has largely morphed into the boomers they used to despise.
- simonw 6mo agoI was talking recently to someone who teaches AI-adjacent courses at a US university (not in a computer science department) and they said that enrollment in their class is lower than expected, which they think is likely due to the severity of the AI backlash among students on campus.
- semiinfinitely 6mo ago> they think is key
- mitthrowaway2 6mo agoWhat kind of AI-adjacent? If it's fundamentals of ML, I'm surprised to hear that. If it's "how to use ChatGPT for creative writing" then I'm not surprised. Why would someone take a class from a teacher who has had only just as much experience with these tools as their students have?
- 19skitsch 6mo agoAgree… OP said “not CS” so doesn’t seem surprising. If we’re going by anecdotes, AI classes in the CS dept have risen in popularity in the past few years.
- acbart 6mo agoWhere are you seeing CS classes with increasing enrollment? Everyone I know is saying they're seeing smaller classes. Maybe some upper division from the last swell, but we're all definitely declining this year and last year, from what I'm seeing.
- pibaker 6mo agoI actually feel the opposite. I don't think people from outside CS will have that much interest into the very basics of AI because there is usually a huge gap between "this is how back propagation works" to any AI model that is remotely useful. And if you are interested in the fundamentals themselves you would probably be majoring CS anyway. A course on how to use existing AI tools will be pointless, but if there is anything I know about college students is they love taking easy courses for easy credits.
- therobots927 6mo agoWhat the tech elite fail to understand is that we are at historic levels of wealth and income inequality. Access to healthcare is determined by one’s employment which makes what I’m about to explain a matter of life and death. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s all going to work out and AI will bring an unprecedented era of abundance. That is not the current state. The current state is: Nearly all productivity growth since 1980 has gone to shareholders, not workers: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ Now what do you think happens when we dramatically expand productivity with AI? Well, we’re already seeing unprecedented layoffs in tech. And it’s easy to draw the conclusion that unless something structural changes all of the productivity gains from AI will go to investors not workers. Leaving said workers without access to healthcare or housing. And of course let’s not forget that the tech elite in question supported Trump in the last election - someone who has done everything in his power to reduce healthcare access among the low income / unemployed population. This isn’t fucking rocket science guys.
- taurath 6mo agoThey understand, they’re the ones on the top of the ladder pushing everyone else off.
- ike2792 6mo agoThis has mirrored what I've seen in my company. People in the data science/ML part of the company are super excited about AI and are always giving presentations on it and evangelizing it. Most engineers in other areas, though, are generally underwhelmed every time they try using it. It's being heavily pushed by AI "experts" and senior leaders, but the enthusiasm on the ground is lacking as results rarely live up to the extremely rosy promises that the "experts" keep making. Meanwhile, everyone can read the news about layoffs attributed to AI and can see that hiring (especially of junior engineers) has slowed to a trickle. You can only fool people for so long.
- grebc 6mo agoUnderwhelmed is the absolute correct word to use here. Absolutely everyone raves about this but other than a few basic computer related tasks I’ve not seen compelling use cases that justify the billions being lit on fire trying to pursue it. My cynical take is the crypto bro’s needed something to do with their useless GPU’s after the crash and found the perfect answer in LLM’s.
- Wissenschafter 6mo ago[flagged]
- pesus 6mo agoBlindly dismissing everyone not impressed by the AI hype only serves to further delegitimize the AI hype.
- Wissenschafter 6mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- 6mo ago
- hcmgr 6mo agoThe tone deafness of the tech community is so unbearable. Either too on the spectrum, too ambitious (the world is fine cause I’m getting mine), or too isolated from non-tech people, to realise most people despise what they’re creating. There’s also a lack of willingness to ‘bring along’ the public. It’s just “make the god thing; ask for permission later”.
- nacozarina 6mo agoa person can have full faith in the potential value of ai science and simultaneously have zero faith in the current crop of business stewards of that science. no one is questioning the underlying model mathematics, they are questioning deceptive & reckless stewards.
- joaohaas 6mo agoI think most people oustide the area do not care and do not know about who's on top, and the negative perception is much more related to how the tech will enable users to misuse it (replacing phone lines/support, AI art, things losing quality, etc) than about the companies themselves.
- Normal_gaussian 6mo agoI think there is a lot of truth to what you say, particularly when it comes to caring rather than parroting; however as part of my personal and civil life I interact with a lot of non-tech people in non-tech capacities, and a surprising number of them raise unprompted complaints about people like Sam Altman and Elon Musk. Musk I understand everyone knowing about; between Tesla, SpaceX, the Thai boys football team, a very public inclination to raise his hand, and a position in the US government he is meaningfully famous. However how Sam Altman has managed to get his name out there in the wrong way very quickly to a bunch of Brits I don't know.
- glaslong 6mo agoYes I believe we're quickly approaching crypto territory, where distributed ledgers certainly have their valuable use cases, but the overwhelming _mindshare_ is active scamming and/or monkey jpegs. There needs to be a concerted focus on real value for end users and less "yeah the terminator will take your job and raise your kids in your absence"
- Jcampuzano2 6mo agoIt is clear AI has value in the pursuit further knowledge. It is also clear AI will bring even worse poverty levels and skew the wealth disparity even further. The latter isn't the fault of AI itself, its the fault of the humans who will control it.
- belval 6mo agoThis is poor reporting, almost needs a checklist: [X] Tweets and instagram comments presented as "what society is thinking" [X] Ties Luigi Mangione and the California warehouse fire to Gen Z discontent (about AI?). [X] Statistics being used to support the title with little to no regards to continuity: "those respondents who said that AI makes them “nervous” grew from 50% to 52% during the same period" => percentage was 52% in 2023, 50% in 2024 and 52% in 2025, seems mostly flat to me, with the real jump being in 2022-2023 with 39%.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo agoThey cite a report and a Gallup poll. That’s not just tweets.
- belval 6mo agoI didn't say it was devoid of substance, the poll part is actually interesting (and worth discussing!) it's just that it actually appears *after* the sloppy tweets and "someone pretended to shoot at Sam Altman's house" screenshot as if that was somehow relevant.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo agoThat might be rage porn. Whatever. Highlighting despicable people on Twitter gets clicks.
- NooneAtAll3 6mo ago"whatever" is exactly the "bad reporting" complaint GP is making
- JumpCrisscross 6mo agoFair enough. It would be better if they interviewed actual people. Barring that, the tweets add colour to the data.
- ChrisArchitect 6mo agoSource: https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2026-ai-index-report https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2026-ai-index-report (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47758120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47758120)
- SunshineTheCat 6mo agoGiant leaps in innovation almost always have a reaction like this. It's new, people fear it. Sometimes justified, usually not. People greatly feared the car because of the number of horse-related jobs it would displace. President Benjamin Harrison and First Lady Caroline Harrison feared electricity so much they refused to operate light switches to avoid being shocked. They had staff turn lights on/off for them. Looking back at these we might laugh. We're largely in the same boat now. It's possible AI will destroy us all, but judging from history, the irrational reactions to something new isn't exactly unprecedented.
- marginalia_nu 6mo agoMany innovations are also on the refuse pile of history. Indoor gas lighting[1] is one. People were quite justifiably skeptical of electricity, when its relatively short-lived predecessor frequently killed people in explosions, carbon monoxide poisoning, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_lighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_lighting
- Aachen 6mo ago> when its relatively short-lived predecessor frequently killed people If only it were this obvious when the polluted air isn't your home but the entire planet, killing not your grandma but taking a few healthy years of life from everyone simultaneously. Maybe people would feel like we need to reverse priorities rather than go full steam ahead on newly created energy demand and see about cleaning it up later
- meander_water 6mo agoZeppelins are another notable one
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- troupo 6mo agoEvery invention is touted as the next electricity, or the next internet (crypto scams anyone?) Meanwhile not every invention is. Electricity and internet are electricity and internet, and very few inventions come even close to that. Meanwhile LLMs have had arguably a net negative effect on the world at large.
- cynicalsecurity 6mo agoParaphrasing the classic, it's not AI that people are unhappy with, it's their life around AI. The world generally appears to have become a harsher and more dangerous place - even though it hasn't. But people and especially tabloid press like finding scapegoats and participating in mass hysteria. The anti-AI hysteria is going to go away soon while AI isn't. It's just another tool, like cars or factories. Granted, it brings some danger, but at the same time it brings overwhelmingly more good.
- taurath 6mo agoThis reads like such a cope. The only people who are hysterical about AI are the people pushing it, pushing the investments, pushing the AGI risk, pushing the marketing and promising to push workers out of their jobs. Listen to Sam or Dario for 10 minutes and tell me they’re not hysterical themselves. Sam compares himself with Oppenheimer, making direct nuclear weapon analogies, and warns of the dangers of what he is producing, yet the people who are concerned about this are hysterical? You are in a massive bubble my colleague, and I hope you have held some small doubts in your mind so when it pops you will have something to hold onto.
- hansmayer 6mo agoThe minor benefits of vibecoding unusable prototypes or lazy cretins "writing" blogs with AI can't quite compare to the benefits of cars and factories, don't you think?
- CobrastanJorji 6mo agoI think people are really underestimating how poorly today's tweens think of AI. "That looks like chatgpt" is an insult. Kids avoid things because they heard somewhere that AI might have been involved and have a sense that means it is bad or immoral or illegal or cheating in some nebulous way, and it's reinforced by their teachers telling them that using AI for homework is cheating. I think this next generation is going to come up fundamentally believing that AI is generally a bad thing, and it's going to surprise older people.
- pesus 6mo agoThe kids are smarter than most people give them credit for. They see their future being destroyed in real time, and AI is only accelerating it and largely being celebrated/promoted/used by the same people currently destroying their future. To them, there are few benefits beyond being able to cheat on their homework, and an enormous amount of downsides. I think it's only a matter of time before we see some more serious, organized opposition to AI (and perhaps even the internet and other technologies) by these young people.
- mghackerlady 6mo agoI really hope it doesn't end in some Butlerian Jihad-esque scenario. I like computers, but they're tools. Nothing more than ethical slaves at most
- MiguelX413 6mo agoLike all technology, it's not question about it itself but rather how it's used.
- grvdrm 6mo ago> The kids are smarter than most people give them credit for When they aren't consumed by TikTok?
- ikr678 6mo ago
- MrScruff 6mo agoI think it's not that difficult to see why a technology that will likely trigger widespread unemployment during a cost of living crisis, an arms race with China, along with all the alignment concerns, might not be hugely popular with the public. Maybe I'd be a bit more optimistic if someone could explain a realistic economic scenario for how we're going to transition into our utopian abundant future without a depression or a revolution.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> a realistic economic scenario for how we're going to transition into our utopian abundant future One aspect almost certainly has to be data centers being run as utilities. That forces transparency, resists monopolization and gives public commissions a say in e.g. expansion.
- notnullorvoid 6mo agoHell no, the current state of centralized AI is bad enough, socializing it won't make it better. We need to let the AI as a service businesses fail.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo agoBut in the meantime you prefer privately-controlled monopsony datacenters?
- notnullorvoid 6mo agoYes I'd much rather big investment firms waste their money instead of government.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- linsomniac 6mo agoAgreed, this article seems to be dancing around the point: WHY are the Gen Z hating AI? We have a political ruling class that is all too willing to throw everyone under the bus if they aren't living up to some expectation, and the political class is being driven by an economic ruling class that largely seems to have the same opinion. Gen Z would likely have a very different opinion if their basic living necessities were available to them.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo agoThe lack of federal permitting standards for AI data centers is really going to bite the industry in the ass. We also probably need something akin to the WARN Act for AI-related layoffs. (Possibly with multi-year benefits for large companies.)
- Yokohiii 6mo agoMy only surprise is that the AI "elite" is surprised.
- roxolotl 6mo agoThey’ve gotta be feigning it right? I just don’t understand how you could be so out of touch with what happens when wealth becomes this concentrated. This isn’t the first go around at this.
- tensor 6mo agoWealth concentration has been happening for a century. You don't need AI for that.
- HarHarVeryFunny 6mo ago"You think that AI will take your job, disrupt society, and has a 25% chance of being an EXISTENTIAL threat?! Who told you that?!"
- slopinthebag 6mo agoIf "AI" was just free local and open models running on consumer hardware, fewer people would have an issue with it. Which highlights that the issue is with the hyper scalers, the rhetoric, the corporations, the marketing, etc etc. We are ever so close to nearing the point where 90% of our AI usage can go through providers of open models, who all compete with each other to drive down prices and prevent rug pulls, leaving Dario and Sam holding empty bags.
- janalsncm 6mo agoFewer, sure, but maybe less than you suggest. Plenty of harms are just as easy under a regime of open models only. Job losses, spamming, scraping the internet, data centers, scams, hacking etc are all possible with open weight models now.
- slopinthebag 6mo agoNah, the issue is more who controls access to these tools. People (rightfully) don't like billionaires or the elite ruling class very much. Without all the hype and investments it wouldn't be seen as such a big deal - just a neat technology.
- goekjclo 6mo agoFree open models are still capable of flooding art communities with slop images, which is worth sympathy, and is not included in your "Which highlights that the issue is with the hyper scalers, the rhetoric, the corporations, the marketing, etc etc".
- slopinthebag 6mo agoWithout the hoards of grifters who latched onto the AI bubble there would be less slop, and the community would find a way to deal with the bad slop, and would be far more accepting of the good slop.
- advael 6mo agoAI continues to be a stupidly vague term, and the example I keep going back to is present in this article Meaningful advances in medical diagnosis are not coming from chatbot companies. Some are coming from machine learning methods. Perhaps measuring public sentiment about such a vagary is not a very productive way to quantify anything That said, I continue to also be frustrated with people using the abstract concept of a new technology as a substitute for the institutions that use that technology to exert power in the world and what they do with that power, which is - as many in the comments already point out - is what the vast majority of people are actually mad about, and right to be
- booleandilemma 6mo agoRight now, as I'm writing this comment, AI = LLMs and image generation. That's it. It's as simple as that.
- consumer451 6mo ago> Right now, as I'm writing this comment, AI = LLMs and image generation. That's it. It's as simple as that I think agentic harnesses add a lot to LLMs, even if many are just simple loops. They are a separate thing from LLMs, are they not? I get the feeling that even if we stopped shipping new models today, new far more useful products would be getting shipped for years, just with harness improvements. Or, am I way off base here?
- booleandilemma 6mo agoYou're already overcomplicating it. A normie that says "AI" isn't thinking about "agentic harnesses".
- consumer451 6mo agoYeah, fair. I misread the intent of your comment.
- advael 6mo ago
- goekjclo 6mo agoMakes sense.
- markus_zhang 6mo agoRegardless, I think we are going to see an acceleration of AI research. I just wish my wife is more serious about camping and learning survival skills. I think Shit is going to hit the fan in the next 5-10 years but she thinks that’s crazy. Oh well maybe I am crazy.
- unclad5968 6mo agoThat is crazy. Why would the next 5-10 years be so insane you'd be forced to survive in the wilderness?
- markus_zhang 6mo agoThinking about AI-induced(or perceived)-layoffs that triggers another depression which then triggers riots in the city, or something like a future war triggering oil going up crazily which in turn triggering the shortage of fertilizer and every other oil products, which further triggers China to put a stop on exporting some key chemical products, which then triggers more shortages and then what not, I think it’s a perfect sane possibility to live in the wilderness for at least a couple of weeks. Oh the second one is happening right now.
- triceratops 6mo agoYou might have better luck in suburbia, growing vegetables in your yard, trading with neighbors, and taking turns patrolling at night than trying to rough it in the wild. Haven't we learned anything from The Walking Dead?
- markus_zhang 6mo agoThis is in my thought too and one of the reason we moved to the suburbs. Yeah I might be a bit too crazy about that.
- thepasch 6mo agoThis AI rollout has been fundamentally rushed and fucked from the very beginning and I think the people who are responsible for doing it this way have done more irreparable damage to society than any single group of humans in the entire history of the species, and I mean it. It’s always only ever about how the new model is faster, better, smarter. Or how the tech will be bringing ruin to the job market and someone should probably do something about that some time soon. Zero efforts to create any sort of educational content - how it even works, how to vet its output, how to have an eye for confabulation, how to use it as thinking enhancement rather than replacement, to keep in mind that it’s trained to please and will literally generate anything to cause users to click the thumbs up button. Nope, it’s just “ModelGPClaude can make mistakes! Better be careful!” And then everyone’s surprised when an utterly improvident handling of 4o kicks off the biggest concentrated wave of AI psychosis seen yet. Because, surprise! When you give people a model that’s trained to anthropomorphize itself, people who have no idea about any of this tech and have no access to education about any of it might believe it’s more than it is! Boy, who’d’ve thunk; isn’t the world complex?! This was a symptom of this exact same disease. I have far less worry about the tech and far more worry about how the disconnected venture capital caste is inflicting it upon us.
- andrekandre 6mo ago> This AI rollout has been fundamentally rushed and fucked from the very beginning fake it till you make it has been modus operandi for tech for almost as long as i've been alive... i feel like this is the apotheosis of this kind of thinking... > Nope, it’s just “ModelGPClaude can make mistakes! Better be careful!” "use at your own risk" and "no guarantees warranted or expressed" is basically in every single eula from tech as well... its not a new trend sadly...
- daveguy 6mo agoOne of the most hilarious AI-vangelical posts I've seen recently is from Steve Yegg through Simon Willison [0].... > The TL;DR is that Google engineering appears to have the same AI adoption footprint as John Deere, the tractor company. Most of the industry has the same internal adoption curve: 20% agentic power users, 20% outright refusers, 60% still using Cursor or equivalent chat tool. It turns out Google has this curve too... [0] Ummmm... Steve. You think Google might be able to figure out a super huge awesome new thing from 1 out of 5 of their employees. Or, given this is a consistent curve across the industry (even at Google)... Maybe AI is only about a fifth as cool and helpful as you and the enthusiasts think it is? [0] https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/13/steve-yegge/#atom-everything https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/13/steve-yegge/#atom-ever...
- maplethorpe 6mo agoIn case you're wondering who they mean by "AI experts", I checked the Pew poll: > Note: “AI experts” refer to individuals whose work or research relates to AI. The AI experts surveyed are those who were authors or presenters at an AI-related conference in 2023 or 2024 and live in the U.S. Expert views are only representative of those who responded.
- gaigalas 6mo agohttps://hai.stanford.edu/assets/files/ai_index_report_2026.pdf https://hai.stanford.edu/assets/files/ai_index_report_2026.p... > The United States reported the lowest trust in its own government to regulate AI responsibly of any country surveyed, at 31%. It seems US citizens are really against the current administration, just using the fact that AI investment is intrinsecally connected to it to voice their opposition. > Country-level expectations follow similar patterns to the earlier sentiment trends. Nigeria, Japan, Mexico, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, and India all expected AI to create more jobs than it eliminates, with shares above 60%. The United States and Canada sat at the opposite end, where 67% and 68% of respondents expected AI to eliminate jobs and disrupt industries. Globally, the disconnect is not growing. It's really just an U.S. problem (spilling to neighbouring Canada too). So, no luddites in sight, again. It's just a public perception over a polemic topic being leveraged for ideological reasons sinking AI on US only.
- skippyboxedhero 6mo agoI think that identifies an issue that is going to cause a real problem for the US in the future. The society is deeply politicised and polarised to the extent that essentially inanimate objects are regarded as having deep political and social significance. When there is political change, it is going to sweep back in the other direction. It also seems like people on all sides within the AI debate have been fanning those flames thinking is will work in the short-term...and it won't. Big tech played that game in many countries in the early 2010s and it didn't end well.
- gaigalas 6mo agoIt must be noted that the U.S. does allow inanimate object makers to fund politicians and such practices are widespread. If all is well, then it's all good: no need to blame anyone, campaings get funded, etc. If one major crisis occours though, the country self-immolates by design.
- twoodfin 6mo agoCorporate contributions to Federal politicians and candidates are illegal in the US. The New York Times is allowed to spend money like anyone else praising or slagging politicians, but that’s the First Amendment, not funding candidates.
- janalsncm 6mo agoIt is worth pointing out that we got here despite all of the “alignment” research and safetyism surrounding the models. As it turns out, the models don’t wake up and start destroying things. We knew this all along, but every time a new article came along and anthropomorphized and exaggerated another experiment it fed the clickbait machine. The fundamental alignment issue is aligning the companies themselves with society, not the models with the companies. Widespread unemployment is not aligned with society, but it is aligned with Anthropic and OpenAI if it makes them rich. Therefore the only “harms” the companies will take seriously are those which also harm the company. For example reputational harms from enabling scams aren’t allowed. Perhaps all of this isn’t fair, since companies actively subverted safety research for profitability. But then I would go back to my earlier point of over-indexing on unintended behaviors and under-indexing on intended ones.
- ofjcihen 6mo agoBeen saying this for a bit but the things I’ve seen associated with AI seem to be the things that it’s pretty mid at. Coding, automated actions etc. I wholeheartedly believe adoption and perception would be better if the things it was amazing at were pushed more. Take log review for example. Whether it’s admin or security LLMs are incredible at reading awfully formatted logs and even using those to pull meaning from other logs as well. Like turn an hour long log review into a 10 minute log review type thing.
- an0malous 6mo agoYeah but the other guy says his AI is going to cure cancer and mine minerals on asteroids. Who do you think the investors are going to fund?
- adamddev1 6mo agoI don't know how many times I've seen some Google AI summary or ChatGPT with references that, when I checked, did not say what what the AI summary said. If a high school student falsified references in a paper like this, they would get a bad or failing grade. This is bad, not acceptable, the teacher would say. But we have been sold to use these constantly falsified AI summaries as the go-to source of "truth" by all levels of society. We're trading truth for an illusion of short-term gains. This will not have good consequences.
- nprateem 6mo agoYou should be grateful to have got back working links.
- zb3 6mo agoPeople are anti AI for obvious and valid reasons, but I think we should focus on where the profit goes and not on hating the technology itself. Of course, if people are fired and only capital owners / AI experts get to earn anything then this is wrong and a revolution is obviously needed and unavoidable. But for me, the best outcome would be if it was AI that did all the jobs so people could focus on doing what they want, not that we'd go back to pre-AI era.. Initially however we need to balance between full wealth redistribution and keeping the incentive to develop AI further. Of course by AI I mean really useful AI, the real part, not the marketing part.
- nprateem 6mo agoPeople need purpose. They may want money, etc but you see it all the time. People get bored and want something to channel their energy into. So even universal income won't solve everything, not that it's ever likely.
- rconti 6mo agoIt doesn't help that AI "thought leaders" can't articulate a vision by which our lives will improve rather than be made worse. It looks like: 1. They take billions in investment 2. They spend trillions 3. They and their investors profit in the quadrillions from all the "labor saving" 4. ??? 5. Everyone's needs are met.
- scottyah 6mo agoRandom people cure cancer for their dog, every business can vibe code an app to make their operations more efficient, anyone can launch a business with 10% of the effort it used to take. The AI companies are only capturing like 5% of the value produced with this tech right now.
- andrekandre 6mo ago> Random people cure cancer for their dog this not a serious comment
- scottyah 6mo agoDid you miss the article? https://news.unsw.edu.au/en/meet-the-man-who-designed-a-cancer-vaccine-for-his-dog https://news.unsw.edu.au/en/meet-the-man-who-designed-a-canc...
- snapetom 6mo agoIt is just obnoxious the gap between thought leaders and everyone else. I was at a panel last week. The most pro-AI person was an account executive from a big fintech company. EVERYONE else - a data scientist that works in AI, regulatory compliance, cybersec, and marketing, took the position of "hey this is great and will change things, but let's pump the brakes... a lot."
- NooneAtAll3 6mo agocan someone explain what kind of ai-related regulations are there in Singapore and Indonesia to get such a high trust score?
- ronsor 6mo agoThere aren't. AI despair is mostly a Western mindset, and Asian countries have more positive views.
- frm88 6mo agoSingapore has a modular approach for regulation where they regulate sector by sector, e. g. financial, medical, educational etc. In the financial sector, for example, the board of the institution is responsible for risk assessment as well as implementation. I couldn't find out whether they are liable in case of damage, but I would assume so. They update their regulations frequently, sector by sector.
- epgui 6mo agoThis article seems to be using the word “expert” quite imprecisely.
- mnmnmn 6mo ago[dead]
- zmmmmm 6mo agoMy own anecdotal experience is yes, there is a real visceral hatred of AI among Gen-Z. You have to look at it through a lens where they already feel like there's been a massive amount of intergenerational theft against them - particularly with the housing market putting owning a home out of reach, along with the evaporation of the concept of a stable career. Now they are going through education learning skills that they are incessantly hearing will have no purpose and there will not be jobs for them. It's hard not to see that they have a point. If AI is so great and going to save so much money - how about starting by paying some of that forward? Suddenly when you ask the billionaires or AI tech elite to share any of the wealth they are so confident they will generate, everyone backs away fast and starts to behave like it is all a speculative venture. So which one is it?
- nprateem 6mo agoExactly. They grew up fucked by social media, the financial crisis and covid, can clearly see housing is unaffordable and now they won't have jobs. No wonder they're all trying to get on benefits. Fuck Maggie Thatcher for selling off the council houses.
- largbae 6mo agoWell we can easily see that the "abundance" people are wrong(for example everyone can't have a penthouse apartment overlooking Central Park, no matter how capable the robots become). An alternative possibility that inequality is about to explode between those who profit from AI/robotic labor and those displaced by it.
- eloisius 6mo agoAh, but you can have a penthouse apartment overlooking Central Park in a gen AI paradise, and that’s just as good.
- nprateem 6mo agoI think it's pretty clear that the problems with AI are: 1. Overhyped. Try writing a blog post that doesn't sound like it. Everyone is sick of reading it now. 2. Affecting the wrong people. It used to be the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. But now a lot of the middle class will get poorer 3. Severely damages the work hard way out. Competition will become brutal if there's almost no barrier to entry. This will drive down profit, affect hiring and will become a conveyor belt of people trying to win the business lottery. This will make moats even more essential. 4. The obvious theft of creative works which destroys dreams and livelihoods. No wonder the younger generation are against it. Those of us in the middle are still just hoping at least we can get through somehow. At least we have hope.
- sph 6mo agoAlso 5. Not what the world needs. Automation can free humanity from toil, but automation in the hand of billionaires that does the work of white collar, educated people in a period of economic and cultural turmoil, with no plan to employ them all than hoping UBI descends from heaven unto the world, is the recipe for societal disaster on a massive scale.
- munificent 6mo ago> Meanwhile, 56% of AI experts said they believed AI would have a positive impact on the U.S. over the next 20 years. Imagine choosing to be an expert in something that you think is a coin flip away from making the world worse.
- johnfn 6mo agoIsn't this an extremely reasonable thing to do? To take an extreme example, consider people working on gain-of-function virology research.
- archagon 6mo agoI can't imagine most people working on gain-of-function virology expect it to make the world worse.
- losvedir 6mo agoI don't think you can just invert it like that. There's probably a significant percentage of respondents who think it might not have much impact.
- Yokohiii 6mo agoYou can be concerned and optimistic at the same time.
- neuzhou 6mo ago[dead]
- shirleypatrick 6mo ago[dead]
- neuronic 6mo agoI work with LLMs extensively and daily and they are very useful. BUT dear god, absolutely nothing about them is intelligent. If you work at the edge of context you know what I mean. Even within context, if the system was truly intelligent, the way that Euclid was intelligent, why do I need /superpowers and 50 cycles to get a certain implementation right? Why is the AI not one-shotting obscure but simple business logic cases with optimal code? Whoops pattern never seen before! There is no thought to it, zero. The LLM is just shotgunning token prediction and context management until something sticks. The amount of complexity you get out of language is certainly fascinating and surprising at times but it's not intelligence - maybe part of it? Sell it as skills or whatever, but all you do every day is fancy ways of context management to guardrail the token predictor algorithm into predicting the tokens that you want.
- vrganj 6mo agoAI is a religious icon for capitalist ideologues. A silicon savior to finally free capital from the dependence on labor with all its pesky demands like sick leave or a living wage. You can see this in the literal deification going on in VC circles. AGI is the capitalist version of the Second Coming, God coming down to earth to redeem them by finally solving the contradictions in their world view. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the rest of us, it's not all they hope it to be.
- algoth1 6mo agoMy wife has a very serious health issue, that has caused more suffering then words could describe. o1-preview was the first ai that actually proved useful. From there on, each improvement on ai caused an incremental improvement in her situation. Even recently we were able to pinpoint exactly what was causing her flare, and solve the situation the same day, just by prompting a claude opus conversation where i’ve shared all her health notes. But if i weren’t a data freak and haven’t been collecting data about her issues (what she does/takes and how she feels) for so long i dont think we would had been able to get this far. So i think ai appeals to people with problems that can be solved by finding patterns in data. People that say ai makes mistakes don’t understand that the power is in finding patterns, not in finding THE right answer. You need to prompt from that prespective
- cmiles8 6mo agoI have seen this shift myself. A year ago everyone was super excited by AI. Now, if you exit the tech ecosystem, most people have become decidedly “meh” about the tech. “Is that some nonsense ChatGPT told you?” Has turned into an almost cynical mocking in response to someone commenting about an issue. The hype seems to have run its course. I’m a fan and use it constantly, but it’s also clear there’s serious storm clouds and headwinds on the horizon.
- spprashant 6mo agoI don't think the disconnect is very surprising to the "insiders". Your Dario's and Sam's know exactly what they are doing. They know it's going to cause a lot of job displacement, even if the technology isn't perfect. They are trying to get the C-suite elite hyped up about it, and the hyperscalers are along for the ride as well. There's so much money to be made. They could not care less about what joe schmoe on the street thinks about it.
- jarjoura 6mo agoThis is 10000% OpenAI's fault. In 2022 the world was open arms, welcoming AI advancements. However, since 2022, OpenAI and all of its original founding researchers, had their dramatic fallout, and began screaming in public saying crazy people things like "the end is coming." Why did they insist on force launching ChatGPT? Google at the time refused to launch their own version (it was their own research that gave birth to LLMs) based chat because they knew all of the negative outcomes and unreliability of it all was just a poor product experience. Instead of launch quietly like DALL-E and keep it fun and experiemental, nope, they threw it up online and moved full-steam ahead. "THE END IS COMING" Sam Altman said. "AI WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS WITHIN 5 YEARS" Dario said. "AGI IS ALMOST HERE" Elon Musk said. The disconnect is because these specific men, making those specific bold crazy person claims, with zealous cult following employees (including many of us here in this forum), kept marching ahead. Not only that, no one asked the rest of the world if they even wanted this technology EVERYWHERE. This technology could have been so cool if it were given the breathing room to find usecases for it. Natural Language programming has been tried for a half a century, and it finally arrives. Yet, it's so tainted by all the crazy person speak, and doomsday messaging, it's also thrown out there in such a haphazard way that have burned so many bridges, this technology is truely toxic. The fact that Gen-A and Gen-Z now have to waste brain power speculating if something is AI generated, is such a waste, but here we are. Welcome to the shit storm that was entirely made by those men.
- sotix 6mo agoMy experience has been that the disconnect is between the Bay Area and everywhere else. The engineers at my company are split 50% in the Bay Area and 50% elsewhere. The engineers in the Bay treat it as a borderline religion. They evangelize it, and do not allow any form of criticism. It reminds me of the hippie movement: idealistic and not grounded in reality.
- 66yatman 6mo agoEveryone is trying to keep their jobs that's all.
- amelie0 6mo ago[flagged]