this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
447 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

68305 readers
6835 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] skeesx@lemm.ee 1 points 6 minutes ago

Well, now im sure it will

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 27 points 5 hours ago (5 children)

Maybe that's because every time a new AI feature rolls out, the product it's improving gets substantially worse.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 14 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Maybe that's because they're using AI to replace people, and the AI does a worse job.

Meanwhile, the people are also out of work.

Lose - Lose.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 hours ago

Even if you're not "out of work", your work becomes more chaotic and less fulfilling in the name of productivity.

When I started 20 years ago, you could round out a long day with a few hours of mindless data entry or whatever. Not anymore.

A few years ago I could talk to people or maybe even write a nice email communicating a complex topic. Now chatGPT writes the email and I check it.

It's just shit honestly. I'd rather weave baskets and die at 40 years old of a tooth infection than spend an additional 30 years wallowing in self loathing and despair.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

It didn't even need to take someone's job. A summary of an article or paper with hallucinated information isn't replacing anyone, but it's definitely making search results worse.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 27 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

The first thing seen at the top of WhatsApp now is an AI query bar. Who the fuck needs anything related to AI on WhatsApp?

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago

Who the fuck needs ~~anything related to AI on~~ WhatsApp?

[–] alphabethunter@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 41 points 12 hours ago (19 children)

It’s not really a matter of opinion at this point. What is available has little if any benefit to anyone who isn’t trying to justify rock bottom wages or sweeping layoffs. Most Americans, and most people on earth, stand to lose far more than they gain from LLMs.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 99 points 15 hours ago (14 children)

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.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 0 points 5 hours ago

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.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›