I’m not an AI techie and I’m not well educated on LLMs/AI in general. The issue I’m having is the dichotomy between how people talk about it. I’ve heard completely opposite ends of the spectrum. From AI is quickly becoming advanced enough to threaten human society, all the way to its a glorified dictionary/search engine that can’t really do much of anything. I know Lemmy has a steep anti-AI slant. But, can someone talk about this in a way I can wrap my head around why the divide seems so big?
Also the people developing these things did a horrible job at marketing them, the people in charge of regulating them failed to do so, I’d argue we’re past the point of no return, so we’re just gonna have to adapt. People are going to have a really hard time accepting that a couple of GPUs strung together can replace their economic value, but they sure can!
This is a common talking point. Scott Bessent said this. They sure get a lot of free media coverage to say their message, but fundamentally, poor job at marketing is “no one believes their lies” problem, and “they have to lie better.” solution.
And honestly its the scariest part for me. The power of a computer to social engineer a result or access off a moron like Petes Hegseth? Childs play.
Ken Griffen wasn’t lying when he said it can replace a PhD on his team, he probably fired the PhD before he said it. So I guess ya the bad messaging was rich people claiming they are creating a technology that will render a lot of white collar work obsolete… while they are hoarding all the wealth and skull fucking the government into submission. I speak as a concerned citizen who doesn’t want these people to have a monopoly on this power because I tend to agree with them at this stage. The technological advancement is marching right along with or without us. We’re probably going to need to rethink our economy and distribution of resources here sooner than later.