this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
642 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

68348 readers
4090 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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 52 points 1 day ago (24 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 (24 replies)
[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 122 points 1 day ago (3 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.

[–] faltryka@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (5 children)

The natural outcome of making jobs easier in a profit driven business model is to either add more work or reduce the number of workers.

[–] ferb@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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?

[–] Aceofspades@lemmy.ca 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 4 points 17 hours ago

Universal Base Income - it's either that or just kill all the un-necessary poor people.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 4 points 17 hours ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 47 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is like asking tobacco farmers what their thoughts are on smoking.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 17 hours ago

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.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

More like asking the slaves about productivity advances in slavery. "Nothing good will come of this".

[–] CarnivorousCouch@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] moonlight@fedia.io 22 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Depends on what we mean by "AI".

Machine learning? It's already had a huge effect, drug discovery alone is transformative.

LLMs and the like? Yeah I'm not sure how positive these are. I don't think they've actually been all that impactful so far.

Once we have true machine intelligence, then we have the potential for great improvements in daily life and society, but that entirely depends on how it will be used.

It could be a bridge to post-scarcity, but under capitalism it's much more likely it will erode the working class further and exacerbate inequality.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 17 hours ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago

No surprise there. We just went through how blockchain is going to drastically help our lives in some unspecified future.

[–] skeesx@lemm.ee 0 points 12 hours ago

Well, now im sure it will

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›