Most Americans think AI won’t improve their lives, survey says
-
Then you must know something the rest of us don't. I've found it marginally useful, but it leads me down useless rabbit holes more than it helps.
I'm about 50/50 between helpful results and "nope, that's not it, either" out of the various AI tools I have used.
I think it very much depends on what you're trying to do with it. As a student, or fresh-grad employee in a typical field, it's probably much more helpful because you are working well trod ground.
As a PhD or other leading edge researcher, possibly in a field without a lot of publications, you're screwed as far as the really inventive stuff goes, but... if you've read "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!" there's a bit in there where the Manhattan project researchers (definitely breaking new ground at the time) needed basic stuff, like gears, for what they were doing. The gear catalogs of the day told them a lot about what they needed to know - per the text: if you're making something that needs gears, pick your gears from the catalog but just avoid the largest and smallest of each family/table - they are there because the next size up or down is getting into some kind of problems engineering wise, so just stay away from the edges and you should have much more reliable results. That's an engineer's shortcut for how to use thousands, maybe millions, of man-years of prior gear research, development and engineering and get the desired results just by referencing a catalog.
-
I considered this, and I think it depends mostly on ownership and means of production.
Even in the scenario where everyone has access to superhuman models, that would still lead to labor being devalued. When combined with robotics and other forms of automation, the capitalist class will no longer need workers, and large parts of the economy would disappear. That would create a two tiered society, where those with resources become incredibly wealthy and powerful, and those without have no ability to do much of anything, and would likely revert to an agricultural society (assuming access to land), or just propped up with something like UBI.
Basically, I don't see how it would lead to any form of communism on its own. It would still require a revolution. That being said, I do think AGI could absolutely be a pillar of a post capitalist utopia, I just don't think it will do much to get us there.
It will only help us get there in the hands of individuals and collectives. It will not get us there, and will be used to the opposite effect, in the hands of the 1%.
-
Maybe that's because every time a new AI feature rolls out, the product it's improving gets substantially worse.
-
Yet my libertarian centrist friend INSISTS that AI is great for humanity. I keep telling him the billionaires don't give a fuck about you and he keeps licking boots. How many others are like this??
I used to be that dumb. I was about 22 at the time
-
If it was marketed and used for what it's actually good at this wouldn't be an issue. We shouldn't be using it to replace artists, writers, musicians, teachers, programmers, and actors. It should be used as a tool to make those people's jobs easier and achieve better results. I understand its uses and that it's not a useless technology. The problem is that capitalism and greedy CEOs are ruining the technology by trying to replace everyone but themselves so they can maximize profits.
We shouldn’t be using it to replace artists, writers, musicians, teachers, programmers, and actors.
That's an opinion - one I share in the vast majority of cases, but there's a lot of art work that AI really can do "good enough" for the purpose that we really should be freeing up the human artists to do the more creative work. Writers, if AI is turning out acceptable copy (which in my experience is: almost never so far, but hypothetically - eventually) why use human writers to do that? And so on down the line.
The problem is that capitalism and greedy CEOs are hyping the technology as the next big thing, looking for a big boost in their share price this quarter, not being realistic about how long it's really going to take to achieve the things they're hyping.
"Artificial Intelligence" has been 5-10 years off for 40 years. We have seen amazing progress in the past 5 years as compared to the previous 35, but it's likely to be 35 more before half the things that are being touted as "here today" are actually working at a positive value ROI. There are going to be more than a few more examples like the "smart grocery store" where you just put things in your basket and walk out and you get charged "appropriately" supposedly based on AI surveillance, but really mostly powered by low cost labor somewhere else on the planet.
-
This is exactly the result. No matter how advanced AI gets, unless the singularity is realized, we will be no closer to some kind of 8-hour workweek utopia. These AI Silicon Valley fanatics are the same ones saying that basic social welfare programs are naive and un-implementable - so why would they suddenly change their entire perspective on life?
we will be no closer to some kind of 8-hour workweek utopia.
If you haven't read this, it's short and worth the time. The short work week utopia is one of two possible outcomes imagined: https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
-
Maybe it’s because the American public are shortsighted idiots who don’t understand the concepts like future outcomes are based on present decisions.
-
This vision of the AI making everything easier always leaves out the part where nobody has a job as a result.
Sure you can relax on a beach, you have all the time in the world now that you are unemployed. The disconnect is mind boggling.
Universal Base Income - it's either that or just kill all the un-necessary poor people.
-
Except, no employer will allow you to use your own AI model. Just like you can't bring your own work equipment (which in many regards even is a good thing) companies will force you to use their specific type of AI for your work.
No big employer... there are plenty of smaller companies who are open to do whatever works.
-
Mayne pedantic, but:
Everyone seems to think CEOs are the problem. They are not. They report to and get broad instruction from the board. The board can fire the CEO. If you got rid of a CEO, the board will just hire a replacement.
CEOs are the figurehead, they are virtually bound by law to act sociopathically - in the interests of their shareholders over everyone else. Carl Icahn also has an interesting take on a particularly upsetting emergent property of our system of CEO selection: https://dealbreaker.com/2007/10/icahn-explains-why-are-there-so-many-idiots-running-shit
-
And if you get rid of the board, the shareholders will appointment a new one. If you somehow get rid of all the shareholders, like-minded people will slot themselves into those positions.
The problems are systemic, not individual.
Shareholders only care about the value of their shares increasing. It's a productive arrangement, up to a point, but we've gotten too good at ignoring and externalizing the human, environmental, and long term costs in pursuit of ever increasing shareholder value.
-
This is like asking tobacco farmers what their thoughts are on smoking.
Al Gore's family thought that the political tide was turning against it, so they gave up tobacco farming in the late 1980s - and focused on politics.
-
See also; the cotton gin.
The cotton gin has been used as an argument for why slavery finally became unacceptable. Until then society "needed" slaves to do the work, but with the cotton gin and other automations the costs of slavery started becoming higher than the value.
-
Right?! It's literally just a messenger, honestly, all I expect from it is that it's an easy and reliable way of sending messages to my contacts. Anything else is questionable.
There are exactly 0 good reasons to use whatsapp anyways...
-
Machine learning? It’s already had a huge effect, drug discovery alone is transformative.
Machine learning is just large automated optimization, something that was done for many decades before, but the hardware finally reached a power-point where the automated searches started out-performing more informed selective searches.
The same way that AlphaZero got better at chess than Deep Blue - it just steam-rollered the problem with raw power.
-
or just propped up with something like UBI.
That depends entirely on how much UBI is provided.
I envision a "simple" taxation system with UBI + flat tax. You adjust the flat tax high enough to get the government services you need (infrastructure like roads, education, police/military, and UBI), and you adjust the UBI up enough to keep the wealthy from running away with the show.
Marshall Brain envisioned an "open source" based property system that's not far off from UBI: https://marshallbrain.com/manna
-
It would still require a revolution.
I would like to believe that we could have a gradual transition without the revolution being needed, but... present political developments make revolution seem more likely.
-
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.
Replacing people is a good thing.
Yes, and no: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/g-s1-47352/why-economists-got-free-trade-with-china-so-wrong
-
The cotton gin has been used as an argument for why slavery finally became unacceptable. Until then society "needed" slaves to do the work, but with the cotton gin and other automations the costs of slavery started becoming higher than the value.
My understanding is that the cotton gin led to more slavery as cotton production became more profitable. The machine could process cotton but not pick it, so more hands were needed for field work.
Wiki:
The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the region became even more dependent on plantations that used black slave labor, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of its economy.[35] While it took a single laborer about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day.[36] The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850."
-
This is collateral damage of societal progress. This is a phenomenon as old as humanity. You can't fight it. And it has brought us to where we are now. From cavemen to space explorers.
Oh hey, it's the Nazi apologist. Big shock you don't give a fuck about other people's lives.
