this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
835 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

68348 readers
4021 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
[–] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago

I mean, it hasn't thus far.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 16 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

AI has it's place, but they need to stop trying to shoehorn it into anything and everything. It's the new "internet of things" cramming of internet connectivity into shit that doesn't need it.

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago

You're saying the addition of Copilot into MS Paint is anything short of revolutionary? You heretic.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

I do as a software engineer. The fad will collapse. Software engineering hiring will increase but the pipeline of new engineers will is dry because no one wants to enter the career with companies hanging ai over everyone's heads. Basic supply and demand says my skillset will become more valuable.

Someone will need to clean up the ai slop. I've already had similar pistons where I was brought into clean up code bases that failed being outsourced.

Ai is simply the next iteration. The problem is always the same business doesn't know what they really want and need and have no ability to assess what has been delivered.

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 4 points 16 hours ago

AI can look at a bajillion examples of code and spit out its own derivative impersonation of that code.

AI isn't good at doing a lot of other things software engineers actually do. It isn't very good at attending meetings, gathering requirements, managing projects, writing documentation for highly-industry-specific products and features that have never existed before, working user tickets, etc.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SSNs4evr@leminal.space 19 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The problem could be that, with all the advancements in technology just since 1970, all the medical advancements, all the added efficiencies at home and in the workplace, the immediate knowledge-availability of the internet, all the modern conveniences, and the ability to maintain distant relationships through social media, most of our lives haven't really improved.

We are more rushed and harried than ever, life expectancy (in the US) has decreased, we've gone from 1 working adult in most families to 2 working adults (with more than 1 job each), income has gone down. Recreation has moved from wholesome outdoor activities to an obese population glued to various screens and gaming systems.

The "promise of the future" through technological advancement, has been a pretty big letdown. What's AI going to bring? More loss of meaningful work? When will technology bring fewer working hours and more income - at the same time? When will technology solve hunger, famine, homelessness, mental health issues, and when will it start cleaning my freaking house and making me dinner?

When all the jobs are gone, how beneficial will our overlords be, when it comes to universal basic income? Most of the time, it seems that more bad comes from out advancements than good. It's not that the advancements aren't good, it's that they're immediately turned to wartime use considerations and profiteering for a very few.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

I see it lowering people's ability to focus and for analytical/critical thinking.

[–] sheetzoos@lemmy.world 13 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

New technologies are not the issue. The problem is billionaires will fuck it up because they can't control their insatiable fucking greed.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

exactly. we could very well work less hours with the same pay. we wouldnt be as depressed and angry as we are right now.

we just have to overthrow, what, like 2000 people in a given country?

[–] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 6 points 16 hours ago

Just about every major advance in technology like this enhanced the power of the capitalists who owned it and took power away from the workers who were displaced.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago

Its just going to help industry provide inferior services and make more profit. Like AI doctors.

[–] Naevermix@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

the same could be applied to humans... but then who would buy consumer goods?

In all seriousness though the only solution is for the cost of living to go down and for a UBI to exist so that the average person can choose to not work and strikes are a legitimate threat to business because they can more feasibly last for months.

[–] Naevermix@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

What's the point of producing goods for "useless eaters"?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 6 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

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:

https://www.livescience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/using-ai-reduces-your-critical-thinking-skills-microsoft-study-warns

[–] briever@lemmy.world 16 points 23 hours ago

For once, most Americans are right.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 18 hours ago

remember when tech companies did fun events with actual interesting things instead of spending three hours on some new stupid ai feature?

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

Most people in the early 90’s didn’t have or think they needed a computer.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

How did those barbarians sit on the toilet without memes to scroll?

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

That was the job of reader's digest.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

I thought Reader's Digest was for when the roll ran out.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

80's. 80's we had apple iis, commodores, tandys, ibm pcs, etc. 90's it was cell phones

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So far AI has only aggravated me by interrupting my own online activities.

[–] Trilobite@lemm.ee 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

First thing I do is disable it

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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!

[–] JustARegularNerd@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

I imagine you could filter it with uBlock right?

[–] TylerBourbon@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] StJohnMcCrae@slrpnk.net 4 points 19 hours ago

"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.

[–] rockettaco37@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

All it took was for us to destroy our economy using it to figure that out!

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 68 points 1 day ago (16 children)

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

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›