I just saw a video on the first music synthesizer. It was built in 1897, and took up the entire basement of a city-black sized building. It was huge and useless, but it worked. Over the next 75 years, technology improved, until it could fit into a suitcase, and be carried around.
The concept and the tech existed in its basic form, but it wasn’t really ready for deployment yet.
I see data centers that way. Technically, they can build it, but it still has too many problems to be truly viable yet. There are too many problems with cost, the environment, the corruption, and that’s before considering the impact on society.
In 50 years, maybe we’ll have the technology and the public policy to do this right, but right now it seems like we are forcing an inferior system to accommodate something that is too advanced for it. We’re getting way ahead of ourselves.
It’s like body builder who gets on a bike for the first time, and can’t believe how fast his giant muscles can make that bike move, without realizing how out of control it will be at the same time, or how big the crash will be when it finally arrives.
GUYS, please, we just need to give them one more trillion of moneys and an ocean of fresh water and we will have an AGI next month!!!
Just imagine AI doing all the work for you, while you live a life of leisure as a homeless person!
No, they are not shoving AI through a funnel in our mouths. We are delusional and this must be normal.
The glass is only half full (because AI data centers are stealing all of the good drinking water to cool down their grossly huge “machinery”).
And meanwhile, consumers have to sell a kidney if they want to upgrade their devices.
Ai isn’t being used to better society. To improve lives. It’s being used to drain and make the Epstein class more undeserved money.
I wouldn’t blame ai for that blame the people using it to those ends. It’s just a tool quit being a little bitch
How many tools require millions of gallons of water to and require such unbelievably massive amounts of electricity to operate? Do they take 100,000s of square feet with infrastructure? Generate massive amounts of noise and waste?
It’s not AI. It’s LLMs that don’t actually think in any meaningful way. They just repeat what they have ingested. And was most mathematically likely.
That’s why imma pessimist about LLMs doing anything truly revolutionary. They’re another productivity tool to solve problems that shouldn’t exist in the first place and middle-managment loves it for the same fucking reason.
What you’re calling AI has somewhat shifted to being called AGI. Either way, the ship has long since set sail and LLMs are lumped under the category of AI. That’s what it’s called. Usage dictates meaning. It’s not an endorsement of the technology. The same way the computer AIs in games are called AI even if they aren’t “real AI.”
yup. a roided up eliza isn’t going to synthesize anything new. they can do some tasks, but it’s most certainly not artificial intelligence. and chaining a bunch of eliza’s together isn’t going to make them smarter (claw etc.,), much less make them reliable and useful.
Seems to me like meaningful development isn’t moving at all.
I think it went very fast in 4 years and now it plateaued. The only new thing coming out of it is different ways to interact with the same models.
I never saw it go anywhere. I mean its cool and interesting from a technological perspective but I’m yet to see any practical application for normal people. It seems to only make shit worse, while destroying the environment and the economy.
I respectfully disagree, I use it a lot for work to create simple programs that would take me hours to make, I use it to summarize text, to make templates and to create Regex because I can’t be bothered to learn it.
because I can’t be bothered to learn it.
And there’s the rub
dont you mean AI peddling is moving too fast, rather than the advancement.
It is outrageous what is happening with AI right now, I work for a large company that does contracts with the US government specifically for the VA. Not only did they just lay off a bunch of people but they just announced that we being required to use AI in every step of our workflow and they have decided that AI is so great they now have people who have never a day in their life been coders doing development work. The guy whose job it was to create and manage schedules is now being required to use AI to write code and ship it. These AIs are wrong so so so much its crazy that this is the direction we are going in. If you thought things were bad already its about to get way worse.
I am so deeply sorry to all the vets who will be struggling to get the healthcare that they need because of this. We don’t want to do this either but its clear as day they will fire us and replace us with any warm body regardless if that person has actual experience or not. I am looking to leave but the market is complete dog shit and Its been a struggle to get any kind of response for applications.
Yeah, well this isn’t a democracy where people have a say in what happens in our society. Our feudal elite decides what will happen, so stop complaining.
Is there a good use case yet?
Hmmm…
How about moderation of lemmy users based on suspected political affiliation according to an LLM?Do they use LLM to moderate? Reddit does and it doesn’t have context and it’s how I got permanent ban lol
One party claimed such but the (AI supporting) accused denied it.
reddit does use it, i suspect they are using googles version and or OPEN AI. thats why there has been so many AI generated messages after you get banned. reddit realized this(admin/spez) that its alerting people to its AI usage, they use to shadowban instead now.
the AI response from a sitewide ban usually goes like this: “Your account has been banned due to violaitons(s), please refer to the TOS”. Also it doesnt tell you what the ban is, so they kept nebelous enough that you cant appeal it.
Yup, I saw a video of a child being shoved and said “Ngl I applaud the mom id shove them back” and I was ban for inciting violence lol
How about moderation of lemmy users based on suspected political affiliation according to an LLM?
link, please?
It’s hypothetical, hopefully.
I also did not save the links.
Gpt-5.5 high is not half bad at coding
I just tried it to see if it could implement a ping scanner in python. It could, but only if it blocked the gui while running. That kind of thing is an intermediate level school assignment. It’s not even half bad, it’s maybe 15% not bad.
It’s not bad, it’s not good. It requires a lot of hand holding and context.
Development is moving along just fine IMO. It’s the application of AI that’s out of control.
Besides medical science, I see no use for AI. People make excuses about being “more accessible” for disabled people, but you could replicate those features without AI.
Its the equivalent of using a 80 lb sledge hammer for a penny nail. Swinging wildly and missing 99% of the time, hitting your own shins, but 1% of the time it worked so its definitely good and the right thing to do!
I don’t understand the question and I’m guessing people in the survey may not have either. Moving too fast as in using too many physical resources without first focusing on optimization or “OMG the robots are coming for my job!”? These are very different views on technology that could give the same answer.
Either opinion is valid for “too fast”.
Exactly, that’s what makes it an uniformative question.
It’s all opinion question. They’re trying to gather opinions and feelings, not measure quantitative data about each person themselves.
It’s just a survey writing thing. A good survey can focus on these subjective issues but produce potentially actionable results. This question is akin to asking do you think food is too spicy?
I’ve got some pessimistic views as to long-term AI concerns — I’m not sure that aligning advanced AI goals with human goals in the long run is a viable problem to solve. We may not be able to achieve Friendly AI. I could believe that.
But I certainly don’t think that AI development is “moving too fast”. Not really anything to gain in slowing down development. I remember Elon Musk proposing a six-month moratorium on development — that doesn’t make any sense, only would be something that you’d want to do if you had an immediate milestone that you believed that there was major risk attached to. In general, either AI is something that you should ban globally because it’s too much of an existential risk for humanity, and halt all development and enforce that halt, or you’d like to achieve it as soon as possible. We are not at a point where there is a consensus that that level of unacceptable risk exists and there is a global commitment to enforcing such a global prohibition.
I can believe that there might be an excess of infrastructure development in particular, that we might not have the research side moving as quickly as need be to support that. Like, we might be doing misallocation in buying a lot of specific chips without establishing that those chips are going to provide a worthwhile return. But in terms of the technology advancing…no, can’t agree there.
And…let me make it even more concrete. I’d say that there are basically two scenarios:
-
We establish that AI — for some definition of AI — is simply too dangerous for humanity to have. In that case, the right path is to ban AI globally. That means that nobody gets it. Some coalition of countries is going to have to be willing to attack anyone who tries developing it. In that case, what we have is effectively an arms control restriction baked into customary international law. It is not optional to participate. And, for all the future of humanity, we need to be willing to enforce that. It means that we need a viable verification protocol to ensure that nobody is developing it, as is normally the case for arms treaties. And everyone has to submit to that verification protocol.
-
We don’t. In that case, we want to develop AI sooner rather than later.
I am certainly not willing to say that #2 is the “right” scenario and #1 is the “wrong” one. But if we decide on #1, that comes with a lot of things that we need to be doing as a species. It’s not just going to be the pre-computer-era status quo persisting, where our limited state of technology was what maintained the situation.
EDIT: I’d also add that, just as that I’m not sure that Friendly AI is a solvable problem, I’m also not sure that it’s really viable to have a verification protocol where we can prevent development of AI. Past arms control treaties where I think that verification was likely much easier — it’s hard to hide development of major warships under the Washington Naval Treaty, for example, yet there were still parties evading restrictions — were not always successful. #1 comes with its own set of hard problems too. Are parallel compute processors legal? What about their development and production? Under what restrictions are they used? Is it possible to achieve advanced AI using CPUs (my guess is that it likely is)? If so, what new restrictions will need to be placed on use and access to CPUs? How will we identify entities building production facilities to build CPUs and GPUs? Will we need to track all existing CPUs and GPUs, to try to identify entities who might be stockpiling them? How will we monitor what the great stores of those out there now are being used for?
If we go with #1, that also entails a different world from the one that we live in today.
-
