Most Americans think AI won’t improve their lives, survey says
-
US experts who work in artificial intelligence fields seem to have a much rosier outlook on AI than the rest of us.
In a survey comparing views of a nationally representative sample (5,410) of the general public to a sample of 1,013 AI experts, the Pew Research Center found that "experts are far more positive and enthusiastic about AI than the public" and "far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years" (56 percent vs. 17 percent). And perhaps most glaringly, 76 percent of experts believe these technologies will benefit them personally rather than harm them (15 percent).
The public does not share this confidence. Only about 11 percent of the public says that "they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life." They're much more likely (51 percent) to say they're more concerned than excited, whereas only 15 percent of experts shared that pessimism. Unlike the majority of experts, just 24 percent of the public thinks AI will be good for them, whereas nearly half the public anticipates they will be personally harmed by AI.
New cascadeur update just killed inbetweenjng jobs if its as good as the trailer, but uh I think this is a case where ai good, like yeah jobs lost but the time saved is wild for indie animators
-
US experts who work in artificial intelligence fields seem to have a much rosier outlook on AI than the rest of us.
In a survey comparing views of a nationally representative sample (5,410) of the general public to a sample of 1,013 AI experts, the Pew Research Center found that "experts are far more positive and enthusiastic about AI than the public" and "far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years" (56 percent vs. 17 percent). And perhaps most glaringly, 76 percent of experts believe these technologies will benefit them personally rather than harm them (15 percent).
The public does not share this confidence. Only about 11 percent of the public says that "they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life." They're much more likely (51 percent) to say they're more concerned than excited, whereas only 15 percent of experts shared that pessimism. Unlike the majority of experts, just 24 percent of the public thinks AI will be good for them, whereas nearly half the public anticipates they will be personally harmed by AI.
They're right. What happens to the workers when they're no longer required? The horses faced a similar issue at the advent of the combustion engine. The solution? Considerably fewer horses.
-
https://www.sesame.com/research/crossing_the_uncanny_valley_of_voice#demo
Try this voice AI demo, then imagine if it can create images and video.
This in my opinion changes every system of information gathering that we have, and will usher in an era of geniuses, who grew up with access to the answer to their every question in a granular pictorial video response.
you can't learn from chatbots though. how can you trust that the material is accurate? any time I've asked a chatbot about subject matter that I'm well versed in, they make massive mistakes.
All you're proving is "we can learn badly faster!" or worse, we can spread misinformation faster.
-
First thing I do is disable it
I wish it was optional. When I do a search, the AI response is right at the top. If I want AI advice, I'll go ask AI. I don't use a search engine to get answers from AI!
-
Replacing people is a good thing. It means less people do more work. It means progress. It means products and services will get cheaper and more available.
I trust you've volunteered for it to replace you then. It being so beneficial to society, and all.
It means less people do more work.
And then those people no longer working... do what, exactly? Fewer well-paying jobs, same number of people, increasing costs. Math not working out here.
The fact that people are being replaced means that AI actually has tremendous value for our society.
Oh, it has value. Just not for society (it could that's the sad part). For very specific people though, yeah, value. Just got to step on all the little people along the way, like we've always done, eh?
Yeah, rather than volunteering its more likely you lack a basic characteristic of humanity some of like to refer to as "empathy" instead. And if -- giving you the benefit of the doubt -- you're just a troll... well, my statement stands.
-
I wish it was optional. When I do a search, the AI response is right at the top. If I want AI advice, I'll go ask AI. I don't use a search engine to get answers from AI!
I imagine you could filter it with uBlock right?
-
US experts who work in artificial intelligence fields seem to have a much rosier outlook on AI than the rest of us.
In a survey comparing views of a nationally representative sample (5,410) of the general public to a sample of 1,013 AI experts, the Pew Research Center found that "experts are far more positive and enthusiastic about AI than the public" and "far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years" (56 percent vs. 17 percent). And perhaps most glaringly, 76 percent of experts believe these technologies will benefit them personally rather than harm them (15 percent).
The public does not share this confidence. Only about 11 percent of the public says that "they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life." They're much more likely (51 percent) to say they're more concerned than excited, whereas only 15 percent of experts shared that pessimism. Unlike the majority of experts, just 24 percent of the public thinks AI will be good for them, whereas nearly half the public anticipates they will be personally harmed by AI.
Its just going to help industry provide inferior services and make more profit. Like AI doctors.
-
"Everyone else is an idiot but me, I'm the smartest."
lmao ok guy
-
US experts who work in artificial intelligence fields seem to have a much rosier outlook on AI than the rest of us.
In a survey comparing views of a nationally representative sample (5,410) of the general public to a sample of 1,013 AI experts, the Pew Research Center found that "experts are far more positive and enthusiastic about AI than the public" and "far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years" (56 percent vs. 17 percent). And perhaps most glaringly, 76 percent of experts believe these technologies will benefit them personally rather than harm them (15 percent).
The public does not share this confidence. Only about 11 percent of the public says that "they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life." They're much more likely (51 percent) to say they're more concerned than excited, whereas only 15 percent of experts shared that pessimism. Unlike the majority of experts, just 24 percent of the public thinks AI will be good for them, whereas nearly half the public anticipates they will be personally harmed by AI.
Most people in the early 90’s didn’t have or think they needed a computer.
-
I dont believe AI will ever be more than essentially a parlar trick that fools you into thinking it's intelligent when it's really just a more advanced tool like excel compared to pen and paper or an abacus.
The real threat will be people who fool themselves into thinking it's more than that and that it's word is law, like a diety. Or worse, the people that do understand that but like various religious and political leaders that used religion to manipulate people, the new AI Pope's will try and do the same manipulation but with AI.
"I dont believe AI will ever be more than essentially a parlar trick that fools you into thinking it's intelligent."
So in other words, it will achieve human-level intellect.
-
US experts who work in artificial intelligence fields seem to have a much rosier outlook on AI than the rest of us.
In a survey comparing views of a nationally representative sample (5,410) of the general public to a sample of 1,013 AI experts, the Pew Research Center found that "experts are far more positive and enthusiastic about AI than the public" and "far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years" (56 percent vs. 17 percent). And perhaps most glaringly, 76 percent of experts believe these technologies will benefit them personally rather than harm them (15 percent).
The public does not share this confidence. Only about 11 percent of the public says that "they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life." They're much more likely (51 percent) to say they're more concerned than excited, whereas only 15 percent of experts shared that pessimism. Unlike the majority of experts, just 24 percent of the public thinks AI will be good for them, whereas nearly half the public anticipates they will be personally harmed by AI.
-
US experts who work in artificial intelligence fields seem to have a much rosier outlook on AI than the rest of us.
In a survey comparing views of a nationally representative sample (5,410) of the general public to a sample of 1,013 AI experts, the Pew Research Center found that "experts are far more positive and enthusiastic about AI than the public" and "far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years" (56 percent vs. 17 percent). And perhaps most glaringly, 76 percent of experts believe these technologies will benefit them personally rather than harm them (15 percent).
The public does not share this confidence. Only about 11 percent of the public says that "they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life." They're much more likely (51 percent) to say they're more concerned than excited, whereas only 15 percent of experts shared that pessimism. Unlike the majority of experts, just 24 percent of the public thinks AI will be good for them, whereas nearly half the public anticipates they will be personally harmed by AI.
How did they answer the question about rock and roll being a fad?
-
They're right. What happens to the workers when they're no longer required? The horses faced a similar issue at the advent of the combustion engine. The solution? Considerably fewer horses.
But as for the people who worked with horses, I'm pretty sure they found different jobs - it's not like they were sent to a glue factory.
-
Most people in the early 90’s didn’t have or think they needed a computer.
How did those barbarians sit on the toilet without memes to scroll?
-
US experts who work in artificial intelligence fields seem to have a much rosier outlook on AI than the rest of us.
In a survey comparing views of a nationally representative sample (5,410) of the general public to a sample of 1,013 AI experts, the Pew Research Center found that "experts are far more positive and enthusiastic about AI than the public" and "far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years" (56 percent vs. 17 percent). And perhaps most glaringly, 76 percent of experts believe these technologies will benefit them personally rather than harm them (15 percent).
The public does not share this confidence. Only about 11 percent of the public says that "they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life." They're much more likely (51 percent) to say they're more concerned than excited, whereas only 15 percent of experts shared that pessimism. Unlike the majority of experts, just 24 percent of the public thinks AI will be good for them, whereas nearly half the public anticipates they will be personally harmed by AI.
I agree. Albeit there are some advantages, of course, I am 100% certain that in the aggregate, it will make people more stupid and gullible.
It is sort of obvious when you engage with the thought, and seek it to its natural conclusion:
-
When Miyazaki said the AI ghiblifier is an affront to art, I couldn’t help but think that before WW1, tanks were called an affront to horsemanship.
He said it was an affront to life itself.
-
But as for the people who worked with horses, I'm pretty sure they found different jobs - it's not like they were sent to a glue factory.
Of course, they learned to code.
-
Meta directly opposes the collective interests and human rights of all working class people, so I think the better question is how come you don't care.
There are 47 good reasons to not use WhatsApp.
Hardly ever I come across a person more self centered and a bigger fan of virtue signaling as you. You ignored literally everything we said, and your alternative was just "sms". Even to the point of saying that the other commenter should stop talking to their 47 friends and family members.
-
How did those barbarians sit on the toilet without memes to scroll?
That was the job of reader's digest.
-
That was the job of reader's digest.
I thought Reader's Digest was for when the roll ran out.
