I mean, I’m glad he said it but anyone who’s been paying attention already knows this. The entire country is collectively waiting for the bubble to burst as it is. You also have to separate things like Machine Learning from LLMs. Two totally different use cases. They’ve not even clearly articulated any end goals. Even NASA had ‘put a man on the moon’, not just ‘more space’. From what I can tell their goals boil down to either ‘make money’ or ‘make God’. The former works great for individuals but not a whole class of technology and the latter would surely not garner trillions in investment dollars. LLMs are certainly great productivity tools but what is their goal really for a CEO to be able to fire their entire staff so they can sit down at a computer and type in ‘make my business better’ and they think that’ll work?
It’s changed the price of RAM, that much is assured.
AI has been helpful for my job, sure, but the cost in terms of societal damage is so great it makes me wish AI were never created.
The whole world is lying because that’s how we get fucking money. What a stupid hole we’ve dug ourselves.
In my academic field of sustainability, AI still fails to explain what economic sustainability means. It’s very simple.
I lecture and explain to my students that economic sustainability is about how we assess and manage our knowledge, innovations, wealth, and other man-made capital. I stress that it is ABSOLUTELY NOT profit and revenue.
Sure enough, my students submit assignments clearly written by AI that state economic sustainability is profit and revenue.
AI is regurgitating decades of green-washing and even bad academic articles that state economic sustainability is about profits. I use that AI god mode site to test several AI’s at once and they’ve consistently gotten this wrong for 3 years.
I typed into Google “potatoes pressure cooker” to get a reminder of how long to cook them. The AI told me, and correctly said that I should use the steamer sieve, but also told me to salt the water. The water that would be under the potatoes and that wouldn’t touch them.
I asked why, and the AI said that little splashes of salt water from the boiling would land on the surface of the potatoes and salt them gently, that the salt would increase the boiling temperature, and that the vapour would be aromatic.
I pointed out that the amount of salt landing on the surface of the potatoes would be negligible, that the vapour is distilled water in gas form, and that the increase in boiling temperature from salting the water is less than 1°C. The AI said, oh yeah, you’re right on all counts. Don’t salt the water.
What it has been doing was exactly what an LLM does. It gave me the received wisdom from the internet.
That aligns with what Cory Doctorow was saying here, namely that all the AI successes were from people who already knew what they were doing and could use the AI as a tool. Not from people who had no clue and just let AI do the job.
Here’s a link to the exact same post on Cory Doctorow’s (tracker-free) blog: https://pluralistic.net/2026/08/01/dare-snot/#i-will-fucking-piledrive-you-if-you-mention-ai-again
In other words, corporate leadership is starting from the premise that AI has (or will) radically change the business, and they’re working backwards from that premise to find the evidence to support this article of faith.
Sounds familiar. The proof-of-work blockchain scheme which was the fad a while ago is also often described as a solution in search of a problem.
I feel like block chain as a public ledger has found quite a few purposeful uses, and was a solution to a handful of problems most people rarely if ever encounter. Then fake money got involved
The core issue feels like the dead torrent problem.
Its distributed, so it needs to be hosted, by several locations. Which becomes probitive over time as.it becomes huge. Its also massively inefficient for what its trying to do.
At some point, its basically just one server farm somewhere hosting a glorified MySWL database that doubles as a space heater for the entire planet every time you need to add a row.
I was thinking that with legal backing, blockchain could be a good record of ownership for deeds. Like NFTs but for physical property.
The history of ownership and the public visibility are good features there.
Lack of reliable, authoritative attribution of changes and no rollback or compensatory transactions are all dealbreakers.
Yeah who doesn’t want a ledger you cannot change, sounds like a good idea. /s
In the case of deeds, i think it is desirable because it gives you an immutable history of ownership.
There are other problems but i don’t believe that is one.
No it doesn’t. It only works because 51% doesn’t change the ledger.
You already have this with a simple database for ownership. It already exists, and ledgers made out of paper predates that.
But with good legal backing, all you need is a shared database and maybe basic cryptographic signatures to prove ownership in case of malicious actors. So basically, traditional banking.
Yes, exactly.
Block chain would have been an amazing solution to most democratic vote validation processes.
Well no, because we don’t have a problem that blockchain solves (better than open software, if it must be digital), and there are loads of problems that the blockchain doesn’t solve. Like how am I supposed to vote with that thing under no coercion.
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. The blockchain is a good mechanism to maintain a source of truth that is inspectable and verifiable by anyone. It would only serve to certify that official counts can’t be tampered with in certain ways.
But it doesn’t replace the whole democratic voting process. It doesn’t protect against coercive voting, for instance.
My point originally was that blockchain can be of use to us, but tech bros ruined its rep. Same with AI. I’ve been waiting for routers with ai-powered (really, just machine learning) firewalls that can adapt rules to environments. But instead of that, everyone is obsessed with generative stuff that isnt very good.
Yeah I hear you, but the 51% attack exists. Like if you use paper ballots, you’re safer and it consumes less energy. There is just nothing better by using a blockchain, and paper ballots (for example) can be verified by anyone, the blockchain not so much.
Aren’t votes meant to be anonymous to avoid retribution?
Isn’t the public ledger identifying information to be used by authoritarian violence on every single voter in that case?
Proposed ideas for block chain to maintain election integrity would only use a block chain ledger to verify counts, not store voter information.
It can still be used that way. While most people talk about how corrupt politicians enrich themselves with fake currencies, more legal and legitimate uses can still use decentralized ledgers for useful things. Of course these won’t make headlines.
There are far better global ledger approaches than blockchain.
I believe you, but can you name one so we can all learn more about the alternatives out there?
SWIFT is the easy one. Fun fact they looked into blockchain at one point and went “yeah, nah”
I thought Swift is currently Block-Chain based. Do you mean this Swift?
Which purposeful uses did you have in mind?
Nothing that a centralized server wouldn’t be able to handle better.
Or several other solutions for different use cases. I always remember this article about alternatives: https://gist.github.com/joepie91/a90e21e3d06e1ad924a1bfdfe3c16902
I’m glad you specifically pointed out proof-of-work blockchains.
They’re very inefficient (economically and ecologically) by design. In almost all cases this design isn’t warranted.
Alas there are other designs and while most of them are rubbish as well, a few ones are doing things quite right.I hope that just like other schemes than proof-of-work were thought of regarding blockchains, there will be AI models that are way, way more efficient and ideally can be run locally - for those cases that can use AI…
Wasn’t Nano predicated on those lines? I remember reading transactions could be done locally, even off-line, validated beetween the parts and only later added to the global ledger.
Nano uses “proof of stake” instead of proof of work to decide the order of transactions, and who receives block rewards.
The main problem with PoS is that it’s essentially the same as Federal Reserve bonds: all the new money goes towards people with extra money to freeze. This is part of why inequality has spiraled out of control since the Nixon Shock. Proof of work literally burns most of the profits because of difficulty adjustment.
A more specific problem with Nano (formerly RaiBlocks) is that the entire supply was centrally issued, with a pinky promise from this private organization that they only issued coins by CAPTCHA. If they were lying, then they could have issued 51% of the supply to themselves for permanent control. The only way we’d be able to detect it is if the price kept going down for years.
That requires a global ledger. Blockchain is an appallingly bad way to implement one.
What I understood then was that the local ledger of a given user of the coin would authorize and register the transactions done on/off the recorded balance and, when network available, would broadcast such transactions to the global ledger.
The global ledger was the total sum of transactions, not imperatively required to authorize transaction by transaction.
Funny, that you even know about Nano!
…it’s one of the often overlooked projects because it doesn’t have a ton of fuck-off-money and instead tries to focus on a solid protocol.Nano has a lot of interesting attributes, but I fail to see how what you describe would work in practice.
If both parties want to make sure there are no shenenigans at play, they need to know about the most recent state of the respective account chains, which essentially requires them to be online for agreeing on said transaction.
But overall Nano is very fast and efficient by design and only a failure in terms of “gainz for Lambo”.As we’re here in a thread about AI I should remark that machine-to-machine-payments - in this case: agent-to-agent-payments - would work pretty well with Nano as currency because of the transaction finality (typically less than 1 second) and the feeless nature of transactions.
If AI agents are looking for the most viable way to transfer tiny amounts of value fast and without fees they might find Nano and use it - who knows…
…and just like Nano showed that efficient ways to create digital money are possible I’m hoping for efficient AI models that are economically and ecologically worthwhile.What I understood then was that in person transactions could be done, as the local ledger of each user would authorize and record operations on and off the available balance and wait until network availability to syncronize with the global record.
Returning to the subject at hand: I can imagine very specialized “AI” being useful for scientifical research, where very knowledgeable people use it as a tool to facilitate processes but are nonetheless capable of reviewing whatever results it produces.
Not gigantic datacenters required for this but small, purpose made and perfected, locally run, even if on higher specifications hardware to do so, but machines built for a given task and purpose. The economic viability on it be damned; it’s a tool for research, it is not made to earn money.
To put it bluntly: if you do an offline transaction, you’re prone to fraud.
If you expect the senders account chain to have balance x (because that’s your offline record for that) and the sender has sent all funds to a different address after you synced that account chain, you receive money that isn’t there - kind of like an invalid cheque.
I have no clue how that would work in practice, because to know a random account in advance, you’d have to sync the whole amount of account chains there is (called block lattice in Nano’s case).
With a mobile device that’s hardly feasible and without a mobile device I don’t see how you’d get in contact with people to make such an offline transaction.That kind of specialized AI is what I imagine to be a use case for locally run AI, too.
After all you don’t want to build processes on an AI, where you have zero control over what happens behind the curtains.
That includes feeding potentially sensitive data back to it as well as being unable to control the training data set, its learning, version numbers, etc.
That’s top down thinking for you.
Work keeps insisting we use it and I keep telling them to fuck off.
I get more done than my colleagues BECAUSE i don’t use the not-actually-AI “AI” tool.
AI is changing everything. Its not a lie, its absolute truth.
The problem is the changes are fuckawful terrible for everyone and everything.
What has AI changed so far?
- Hardware prices are so far up that nobody can buy good hardware anymore
- we have AI child porn now, awesome
- we have AI undressing apps, cool
- we have AI, the great cheat tool now † we have AI, the confidently wrong 20% of the time tool
- we have AI, the great misinformation tool
- we are at the brink of the largest economic collapse in human history caused again by the rich loving to play Russian roulette
- there are a limited amount of actual useful applications as well, yay
And all it cost us were millions of jobs, thousands of psychosis and deaths, hundreds of new loud polluting data centers, untold amounts of co2 when were right smack in the mids of a climate crisis…
I’m not advocating for murdering the AI CEOs, but I’m definitely a fan of at least permanent tarring and feathering
Only pro is laborious, tedious programming tasks have become significantly faster to do, along with testing edge cases and stuff a programmer should be able to do but maybe doesnt need to.
Just about everything else is negative.
- two of my friends finally have diagnoses for their health problems they had been living with for decades, and can now get appropriate treatment
That’s awesome! Imagine if we took all the resources spent on pushing AI for stuff it isn’t good at and invested them in training models for detecting, classifying and correlating medical indicators and using that to anonymously connect people with a network of physicians and psychiatrists for further evaluation and preliminary diagnostics to help with getting actual treatment.
We could bring a more reliable version of that help your friends happened to get to more people, with less of a random chance that the model will reinforce the issues or misdiagnose people with dangerous consequences. We could improve the world.
Instead, they burn books, fire people and abuse eminent domain to displace people so they can run power lines to feed data centers fucking up the water supply for residents that got no say in whether they want oversized heaters in their backyard.
I’m glad your two friends got some use out of this. Is that really worth the price?
I 100% agree. I have no idea why my comment gets downvoted so much. I just wanted to point out that AI and even LLMs absolutely do have valuable use cases. I use them a lot and I see people around me making their lives better using them. Are they overhyped? Probably. Are AI companies using public information that should belong to everyone in an unfair way to become rich and powerful? Absofuckinglutely. Is that how it should be? Definitely not. Is AI a technology with massive potential to change the world for the better? Also yes. Does AI have the potential to completely wreck our society and economy if we do the whole thing wrong? Probably also yes. I hope we can find a way to turn this into something positive.
I have no idea why my comment gets downvoted so much.
Because your comment seemed to add an anecdotal “it also helped two people” to a long list of evils as if it were equivalent. “Sure, people are suffering because of this, but two friends of mine are better off for it” – is that really worth it?
I use them a lot and I see people around me making their lives better using them.
Aside from the nebulous question of just how it’s supposedly making lives better, and whether that actually is an improvement, the question repeats: Is a fee people’s lives getting better really equivalent to the people losing their homes, water supply or job over it? It’s not that we’re unaware that it might have benefits, it’s that those benefits are massively dwarfed by the evils.
Are they overhyped? Probably.
LLMs in particular, and dangerously so. People treat them as virtual humans, use terms such as singularity and trust them with cognitive work a linguistic model plainly isn’t capable of actually doing. They deliver a convincing imitation, but there have been too many instances of that imitation not holding up to any reasonable standard. For a more benign example, Ford had to hire back its fired engineers because it turned out that GenAI can’t actually do their job. Less benign are things like giving harmful “health advice” or reinforcing their users’ delusions and psychoses to the point where they commit violence against themselves or others.
They’re still being hailed as the future, despite evidence backing up what theorists have been warning for a while: A text generator cannot generate meaning and should not be used for any purpose where the content actually matters. That your friends’ word salad happened to resemble useful advice is nice, but it wasn’t actually advice, just the product of a high-tech advice imitator that got lucky.
Is AI a technology with massive potential to change the world for the better? Also yes.
This is where we need to specify just what we mean by AI.
Language models are useful for linguistic correlation tasks, but the actual utility of that is hard to gauge, because it heavily depends on the mode of the output and on the recipient. Specialised models may make decent assistants for certain types of specialists.
They certainly aren’t capable of the type of “nobody has to work any more” utopia that conmen like Musk and Altmann are selling to the gullible. They’re fundamentally unreliable and their consumption of resources dwarfs their sloppy utility.
So while some form of AI might hold a key to a radically better world, LLMs and generative AI aren’t it.
Does AI have the potential to completely wreck our society and economy if we do the whole thing wrong? Probably also yes.
Probably? Have you taken a look around or read the whole list you replied to? The hype already is destroying lives, and there’s a slew of experts calling out the fraudulent scheme they’re pulling on the stock market.
The one point I’ll concede to the scammers is that it has fundamentally altered our world.
Just not for the better.
I hope we can find a way to turn this into something positive.
It starts with being honest and clear about what “this” actually is, understanding what it isn’t and not making excuses for a deeply destructive technological complex just because the mathematical parrot emits some useful responses now and then.
First of all, thank you for your extensive response. I think discussions like this are important. Here’s my 2 cents, sorry if I’m not that eloquent - I’m not a native English speaker so some of this is a bit hard to put into words for me.
Because your comment seemed to add an anecdotal “it also helped two people” to a long list of evils as if it were equivalent.
Well, surely my two friends can’t be the only people AI has helped, that would be highly unlikely. So I do think it is a valid point along the other ones - AI does create value. Otherwise there would be no hype. I just think it’s dishonest to claim that AI is completely useless. If we want to turn this into something positive, we have to be honest about all the aspects.
Aside from the nebulous question of just how it’s supposedly making lives better, and whether that actually is an improvement, the question repeats: Is a fee people’s lives getting better really equivalent to the people losing their homes, water supply or job over it? It’s not that we’re unaware that it might have benefits, it’s that those benefits are massively dwarfed by the evils.
Of course it’s not. We’re totally on the same page here. I just think it’s not a matter of the technology itself, it’s how those companies (are allowed to) act. That doesn’t seem like an AI problem to me, it’s a capitalism problem. We might have different perspectives on this btw because I live in the EU. People don’t lose their home or water supply here because of AI companies.
People treat them as virtual humans, use terms such as singularity and trust them with cognitive work a linguistic model plainly isn’t capable of actually doing.
Yes. And I do think AI companies are at fault here for marketing their products dishonestly to people who don’t understand how the technology works. They exploit stupid people, and mostly stupid people in positions with too much power.
They’re still being hailed as the future, despite evidence backing up what theorists have been warning for a while: A text generator cannot generate meaning and should not be used for any purpose where the content actually matters. That your friends’ word salad happened to resemble useful advice is nice, but it wasn’t actually advice, just the product of a high-tech advice imitator that got lucky.
I think we might fundamentally disagree on this. Advice from a human is nothing but a multivariate combination of things that person has learned in the past. It’s way more complex - brains are orders of magnitude more complex than an artificial neural network - but I don’t see a fundamentally and qualitative difference here unless you believe in something like a soul that somehow magically gives more value to a human advice. If you understand that an LLM is a mathematical tool and not a human, you can use it in very efficient and helpful ways. Some questions actually better answered by something that has gathered a wide range of information from thousands or even millions of sources. Some questions that require fast answers are also better answered by AI (just yesterday I asked ChatGPT for a python script for a certain task - it took about 20 seconds and provided a perfectly working ~500 lines python script that I could use; no human could ever do that). Lots of other questions - questions that require emotional connection, personal experience, specialized knowledge - should be left to humans, of course. The amount of shitty and wrong advice I’ve gotten from people, even doctors and other experts, is immense btw. The crucial thing is that you need to learn how to test and evaluate advice that you get - from people AND from LLMs. Many people would profit from learning that skill - maybe using LLMs might even teach them that, even if it will probably usually be the hard way.
Language models are useful for linguistic correlation tasks, but the actual utility of that is hard to gauge, because it heavily depends on the mode of the output and on the recipient.
Yes, that’s exactly my point. We need to educate the recipients. That is actually one of the most important things imo. AI and LLMs aren’t going to go away, they’re here to stay. Just look at how it already penetrated all kinds of scientific disciplines. We urgently need to regulate what companies can do with it and we need to educate people on how they work and how to use them, and especially how NOT to use them. And by the way, I wish we had never made the jump from calling it deep learning to calling it AI - I think that might have prevented a lot of problems und misunderstandings.
Look, I think ultimately our views aren’t even that different. That’s why discourse is important. I just don’t think screaming “AI is bad” is going to get us anywhere (and that’s essentially what the original comment that I replied to was doing imo). We need to be specific about what the problem is: the problem is not AI, the problem is that some people are getting super rich on the expense of almost everyone else. THAT is what we need to stop. You can’t fight technological and scientific progress, what you need to fight is malicious use of technology and the exploitation of the masses for the profit of a few. I’d say we might actually in an “industrial revolution” kind of situation. Back then, workers rights and communism became a thing. We might need something as fundamental as that to deal with today’s problems. We’ll need all the social sciences now that we’ve cut funding for over the last decades because MINT was just more important to us (I say that as a MINT scientist btw).
I think discussions like this are important.
I find that writing out and defending my position helps me refine it. Sometimes, my perspective on things shifts just by trying to explain it. Discussions are the whetstone by which arguments are sharpened.
I’m not a native English speaker so some of this is a bit hard to put into words for me.
That makes two of us :D
Sometimes, these discussions help expand my Engish skills too.So I do think it is a valid point along the other ones - AI does create value.
Yesn’t. It’s a text generator that predicts a likely series of words, based on the language patterns it learned from its training material. It doesn’t so much create value as aggregate the value of other people’s work into a weighted reproduction.
However, those weights are biased by quantity, not quality. It has no way to assess which responses are good, only which ones are likely. The average value it (re-)produces is an average of the value of the training material. Models trained on a wide variety of content (such as ChatGPT) will inevitably include a lot of material of little value to specialised topics.
Hence my argument: It can get lucky and predict a high-value response, but the problem is that it isn’t guaranteed to do so. A layperson doesn’t have the expertise to tell the difference. That not only dilutes the value, it invites false confidence in the results. In cases where accuracy is critical, this may actually produce negative value if people consult an unreliable model rather than a specialist.
And that’s the critical difference to human advice: human experience is shaped by a number of factors beyond just language. We create semantic connections to abstract concepts and attach specific meaning to certain words and patterns.
LLMs don’t have that abstraction. They can predict sequences of text that sound plausible and might coincide with something describing reality, but they can’t tell whether it’s accurate.
Advice has to be grounded in reality to be useful, and that’s what LLMs are missing.
They’re perfectly suitable for tasks where correlation is enough, but if the task requires actual understanding, LLMs aren’t equipped for it.
Otherwise there would be no hype.
Hype doesn’t always need a solid reason. In this case, a lot of hype stems from the hope that we may one day have the type of Artificial General Intelligence that SciFi has long dreamed of, the illusion that they may be able to do our work for us and the promise to company managers that they may be able to save money by replacing human employees with AI.
The various executives of the big AI vendors are obviously capitalising on that, stoking the hype with grand and utopic visions because they want to sell their product.
It’s not that it’s useless. It’s that the utility is far less than the lofty promises made by people milking the hype for all it’s worth. And that little utility comes at a terrible social, economic and ecologic price.
We might have different perspectives on this btw because I live in the EU. People don’t lose their home or water supply here because of AI companies.
I’m in the EU too, I just read a lot of US news. I don’t think we should dismiss the consequences our use of US infrastructure has. Worse yet, I don’t think we should dismiss the political dependencies that creates.
We need to be specific about what the problem is: the problem is not AI, the problem is that some people are getting super rich on the expense of almost everyone else.
I think that’s only a part of the problem. The second part is the lack of understanding you mentioned, and the resulting mis- and overuse. I’ve seen people trying to argue with experts because “ChatGPT said” because they genuinely do not understand that ChatGPT is a parrot, not an expert.
And the third part, again, is the disastrous effect on our world.
You can’t fight technological and scientific progress […]
I’d say we might actually in an “industrial revolution” kind of situation.I’m not fighting it. I’m trying to pull it out of the pit that the current obsession with imitation has dug. When college students, the next generation or scientists, trades their scientific understanding for the convenience of high-tech parrots, that is the opposite of progress. It’s stagnation, fostered by those few people that are happily trading our future for their present profits.
That’s the mirage of this “industrial revolution” analogy: They’ve built something in the shape of a steam engine, promised the functionality of Spinning Jenny, sold fabric factory owners on the idea who fired their workers to buy these machines. The people they fired were promised that they’d have to work less, but weren’t told that they would be paid less too.
Now these machines turn out to not actually provide the smooth, spinning motion required for spinning thread. Factories are facing expensive production outages, compounding the expenses of getting these machines installed and can’t afford to hire all the workers back.
The machine shops built to produce these Sloppy Jennies or their parts will eventually find it harder to sell their iventory. Once they go under, their workers will also become economic casualties.
We’re at the point where we need to reinforce worker protections. We need to push for a system where our livelihood isn’t contingent on the amount of work we do. Only then can that utopia even manifest. And to actually make progress:
We’ll need all the social sciences now that we’ve cut funding for over the last decades
Yes.
We’ll need to understand the social dynamics of such technology to better prevent the disastrous side-effects. We’ll need to compare historical developments with present circumstances and plans to account for future developments. We’ll need to study the psychological effects of interacting with human-like machines to be able to correct course where needed.
Whatever control mechanism is supposed to prevent machines from producing harmful output will need heuristics based on those disciplines to assess the dangers of that output.
I’d include philosophy too. We don’t need neural networks that are a lesser version of human ones, nor just scaled-up variants that also replicate all the human inefficiencies, errors and biases. Those are the pure MINT approach to the problem, and it’s clearly coming up short.
We need to find a rigorous mechanism for representing semantic knowledge in digital systems that don’t just imitate, but surpass human cognition. We need a workable philosophical grounding for logical and mathematical approaches to modelling knowledge of concepts rather than just language.
We need to get over the error that LLMs are “thinking” or “just like humans”. They’re not, but as long as we’re stuck on the idea, we can’t fix it.
Also, we really, really should spend less time thinking about whether we could and more about whether we should.
I find that writing out and defending my position helps me refine it. Sometimes, my perspective on things shifts just by trying to explain it.
Same here. It’s the best way to test my current views and beliefs and reshape or refine them.
That makes two of us :D Sometimes, these discussions help expand my Engish skills too.
Ah yes, hello there, fellow German. :D winkt fröhlich auf Deutsch ;)
It’s a text generator that predicts a likely series of words, based on the language patterns it learned from its training material.
Yes and no. While I do absolutely agree about the problem of reliability and false confidence, I do not agree on the general understanding of LLMs. You make it sound like it’s merely a predictor of likely words, like your phone keyboard may suggest words you usually use in sequence. But it is really not that simple. I disagree with the - especially here on Lemmy - very widespread “parrot” analogy in the sense that imho people have a very oversimplified idea of what large language models actually are. They don’t just count statistics of word sequences and then spit out the most likely combination. The amount of text they learn from is so big and their structure is complex enough that they can actually learn underlying patterns about WHY words are usually arranged in a certain pattern. That way, they can absolutely learn concepts and “skills” like logical reasoning, to a certain extent. The exact patterns they learned aren’t even fully understood, but obviously it does work. Even early GPT models learned to do arithmetic - there are publications that show that GPT was able to calculate arithmetic problems that were not in the training data, although it did make mistakes. Funnily, the mistakes seemed similar to mistakes humans usually make, like forgetting carryovers in additions or subtractions. Still, it had apparently learned the concept of arithmetics, just by seeing examples (and maybe explanations - we don’t really know). Modern LLMs absolutely capable of a certain level of logic. You can give ChatGPT a task it’s never seen before and chances are it can solve it. Even if it can’t - that doesn’t make its reasoning qualitatively different from how a human brain works. My argument is that humans learn how to think “logically” by seeing examples too - and they fail at logic all. the. damn. time. Go to a city center and ask people logic puzzles - see how many will be able to solve them correctly (and maybe compare the result to an LLM). I wouldn’t even be surprised if by now, even asking medical questions to doctors would, on average, yield worse results than a state-of-the-art LLM. I did a PhD in computer science a few years ago and I can tell you, I would probably rather trust the latest ChatGPT model on most questions regarding my field than myself. It has just become that incredibly good. I’m absolutely not saying it’s perfect, it still makes stupid mistakes and you have to be aware of that, but so do people. I have not seen a single convincing argument why the concept of logic or reasoning that humans have is fundamentally different from that of LLMs. Most people suck at logic. And most men in my life regularly spit out false knowledge with a confidence only a mediocre white man and an LLM can have. ;P
In all seriousness - LLMs lack sensorimotor interaction with the world, and even if we give them robot bodies, they will never know what it’s like to be human. In that sense, they will not replace us, and they will never be human. I would even agree that they will probably never be conscious (although of course we can’t be sure, especially since we haven’t understood consciousness yet in the first place). Their biases and their “way of thinking” will also most probably always be different from humans. But I do not agree that they cannot be “intelligent” in a logic/reasoning sense and that they are merely “statistical parrots”.
The various executives of the big AI vendors are obviously capitalising on that, stoking the hype with grand and utopic visions because they want to sell their product. It’s not that it’s useless. It’s that the utility is far less than the lofty promises made by people milking the hype for all it’s worth. And that little utility comes at a terrible social, economic and ecologic price.
Agreed. I’m fascinated by how far AI has become, but it just isn’t where marketers claim it is, and we can’t be sure it will get there anytime soon.
I don’t think we should dismiss the consequences our use of US infrastructure has. Worse yet, I don’t think we should dismiss the political dependencies that creates.
True. Political dependencies are a serious problem and I’m pretty sure they play a big role in why the US actually lets AI companies get away with all the shit that they do.
I’ve seen people trying to argue with experts because “ChatGPT said” because they genuinely do not understand that ChatGPT is a parrot, not an expert.
Yeah. The point is: ChatGPT will not make you an expert. ChatGPT may act as an expert and even provide accurate information, but citing its answers will not magically make you an expert yourself. That is something that needs to be hammered into people’s heads.
I’m not fighting it. I’m trying to pull it out of the pit that the current obsession with imitation has dug. When college students, the next generation or scientists, trades their scientific understanding for the convenience of high-tech parrots, that is the opposite of progress. It’s stagnation, fostered by those few people that are happily trading our future for their present profits.
Fair enough. We need to find ways to use AI as a useful tool, not a tool to make people lazy and stupid. Tbh, I think it will happen. It happened with Google as well. People used to use Google wrong all the time when it was still new. They clicked the first search result and believed absolutely everything it said. I’m kinda old, I remember that time. :P I’m pretty sure it will be similar with LLMs. By using them, we will learn their limitations and shortcomings, and many of us will learn the hard way. The marketing strategies of AI companies are NOT helpful with that.
We’ll need to understand the social dynamics of such technology to better prevent the disastrous side-effects. We’ll need to compare historical developments with present circumstances and plans to account for future developments. We’ll need to study the psychological effects of interacting with human-like machines to be able to correct course where needed.
I absolutely 100% couldn’t agree more. AI has already had a lot and probably will have even more impact on us, on other technologies like medicine, biotechnology, probably chemistry, material sciences, and loads of other key technologies. We will have a LOT of trouble keeping up with that acceleration of technological progress as a society. In a world where even the existence of the internet doesn’t seem to have been digested fully, AI has the potential to completely wreck everything. And certain people will do all they can to exploit that to gain power and money. And we will have to be faster than them.
In that sense, I agree that
Also, we really, really should spend less time thinking about whether we could and more about whether we should.
is probably right. The EU’s AI Act is a good first step, but the world is in this together, and with the current geopolitical situation I honestly don’t see us working together here for the good of humankind. So maybe trying to somehow decelerate technological progress really can be a reasonable way to take pressure out of that system. I’m not sure it’s possible though.
Trust me, bro!
They are real people these friends of mine, but you don’t know them, because they are from a different school. And you won’t see them this summer at all because… they are both actually models in Canada during the summer.
But totally cured and now they get boners also with THIS ONE TRICK that doctors HATE it!!!
I don’t know what your problem is. My friends are indeed real people. They are not cured, I said they have diagnoses.
One of them has had diffuse but severe symptoms for at least the last 15 years. Bloating, stomach pain, vomiting, circulation problems, etc. She had nights of vomiting and diarrhea where she said she thought was dying, that’s how miseable she felt. She went to many doctors, they ran many checks, and she only ever got the same result: there is nothing to be found, it must be psychosomatic, probably stress. This result, by the way, is a very common one when you’re a woman and you’re seeking medical attention, even for serious problems. Last year, she discussed all her symptoms and observations (like foods and acitivities that seemed to make the symptoms worse) with ChatGPT and it suggested it might be MCAS. She got medication that is supposed to help with MCAS and she is feeling so much better now. She is not cured, but she can have a normal life again. I can tell she has about twice as much energy as she used to have. That is a huge life quality improvment.
The other friend has had bad hearing on one ear for almost all his life. Doctors never found a cause, all they said was “well we could cut it open and take a look if you want” which didn’t sound so great so he never had it checked further. After discussion with some LLM chat bot, he went to another doctor and insisted on getting a CT scan. Turns out he has a (benign) tumor in his ear that’s been growing ever since he was a child. It will be surgically removed soon because it won’t stop growing on its own and might even grow into the brain one day. If he’s lucky, his ear might even be much better afterwards (unless too much of the structure is already destroyed by the tumor growing).
Look, I know it sounds kinda stupid, but I promise you, these are real stories. I know that if you do it wrong, discussing health issues with an LLM can absolutely backfire and be very dangerous. But if you can trust your own brain and don’t switch it off just because you’re using an AI, it can actually be really helpful.
The medical field is one of the places where AI has made real, tangible improvements.
I can’t vouch for that other person’s anecdote, but it seems entirely plausible that an LLM chatbot would be able to better diagnose an issue than a search engine, or even a human doctor, especially if the underlying issue was something like an autoimmune disease, which are notoriously difficult to diagnose.
One of the big flaws in the medical profession (and, really, most professions) is that once you are out of school, nothing forces you to keep learning as the field advances. This potentially, and counterintuitively, results in gaps in knowledge that increase the longer a doctor has been practicing. LLMs, with access to the newer medical information and with the ability to receive and output natural language, do make good tools for diagnosis.
AI, as it turns out, is also way better at analyzing MRI scans and x-rays than humans.
An old-fashioned Google search can point you to more information, if you’re curious about how AI has advanced the medical field.
Medical AI is usually more along the lines of ‘we’ve created a proprietary model for computer aided diagnostics specific to x disease being scanned with y modality and we’ve taken this through the regulatory process in z jurisdiction’ than ‘put your symptoms into an LLM lol’.
There are studies that show that LLMs (chatbots) perform as well or better than human physicians.
I’m not suggesting getting rid of physicians, though. This is a tool for humans, not a replacement.
@joe @mobyduck648 [citation needed]
@joe if it’s a tool for doctors to use then it will simply increase the costs of providing care even if there is an increase in the quality of that care. That means adoption of that particular type of “AI” will be limited. If it’s possible to replace doctors with a chatbot, that will decrease costs even if the quality of care also decreases.
Which one do you think is more likely to be widely used in a profit-driven, anti-human system?
Don’t conflate the fucked up medical system of the US with any other countries system. If the cost in Belgium would rise 40%, I would pay 7€ instead of 5€.
These are concerns with the healthcare system, not concerns with AI.
Super cool! Well we can base your personal healthcare on AI’s sole guidance and if you are misdiagnosed, injured or dead as a result of an “oopsie”, no human will be held legally liable - fun!
So no real stakes for anyone to get it right, as with human-led interventions (with careers on the line at every stage to keep people engaged and honest). But corporations will probably just naturally do the right thing.
But you’re brave, you offer yourself as tribute to the lying machine. Tight tight tight!!!
You seem very passionate about this topic, but you’re not really adding much to the discussion.
Don’t worry, its coming across loud and clear that AI could cure cancer and you’d still think it was better to have cancer than use AI. I get it. AI = bad, full stop. Message received.
“AI” isn’t a thing. Computer vision, machine learning, natural language processing and neural networks are. These can all be useful tools when regulated and maintained with active oversight to balance with society’s other core priorities. What’s at question is the current method and human cost for this frivolously hyped, deceptively marketed lying machine with a single tangible use to date, being the operating system for Facebook’s pervert glasses. You didn’t read, of missed the entire point of, this important article, shared from an important contemporary mind.
Name and cite SPECIFIC examples of anything you claim.
P.s. you don’t “cure cancer”… cancer is a broad heading for hundreds of unique types of disease, presenting in different, completely unique systems within the human body. Like AI, “a cure for cancer” is a broad generalization of complex underlying systems that ignorant people make frivolously - People who think they HAVE the entire knowledge of the world in their brains, when they actually only have a plastic rectangle in their pants pocket with privilege-gated access to a (mostly corporate) CURATED VERSION of the world’s historic knowledge. So if you’ve “cured cancer” friend, why aren’t you treating the 20-30k humans that will die from a form or cancer today worldwide?
Funny how my experience is the American health care system is still 100% absolute shit that costs me 2k a month for the privilege of said shit. My wait times are the same, my “go fuck yourselves” are the same, my healthcare workers are still underpaid, and the systems for consumers are still shit.
“But the charts say AI is helping”
Once again it’s consumers get to wait for the piss to trickle down our backs. AI hasn’t done shit for the average Joe except make everything cost more while providing a worse service. Please, tell me how my healthcare experience has improved in the past 2 years. Go.
You are talking about a different thing than I am. The American healthcare system is garbage with or without AI, but AI is helping the medical field. Getting a more accurate analysis of an MRI scan is objectively a good thing, for example, even if the healthcare system that performed the scan is garbage.
They’re not using LLMs to analyse MRI scans. There are image processing algorithms for that, but they’re a whole other thing to what this entire thread is about.
Also, are you a fucking bot? I’ve read all your comments so far in this thread and uhh yeah. Please feel free to jog on now.
I’ve read all your comments so far
I’m flattered. Did you read the first one where I said it was reductive to equate AI with chatbots?
How is “helping the medical field” not compatible with better healthcare quality? If the end user isn’t experiencing benefits, then how can you claim that benefits have been provided? Who is getting these “benefits” if it’s not the end user? If someone IS getting benefits, yet the end users still haven’t gotten a better experience… Then can you agree that AI is only helping intermediaries? Like… The corporations who provide the garbage experience?
Do you see your logical fallacy here?
If your loved one is diagnosed with cancer early that would have been missed by a human, that’s a fucking benefit, is it not?
I’m sick of luddites.
> The medical field is one of the places where AI has made real, tangible improvements.
This is demonstrably untrue.
AI tends to increase dangerous racial bias in healthcare.
- https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/healthcare-bias-in-ai-a-systematic-literature-review/
- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract%5C_id=3747737
- https://tech4future.info/en/algorithmic-discrimination-healthcare/
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-022-00590-8
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40615-024-02237-0
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20539517231213820
- https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(24)00321-5
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-01746-4@joe @Snapz AI is dangerously unreliable in a clinical setting and often provides dangerous medical advice in and out of clinical settings.
- https://futurism.com/typo-ai-doctor-haywire
- https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/aimcc.2024.1260
- https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIoa2300015
- https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3715275.3732121
- https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1181131532/eating-disorder-helpline-takes-down-chatbot-after-it-gave-weight-loss-advice
- https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/serious-medical-error-from-perplexitys
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3715275.3732039AI can make medical professionals less competent
- https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(25)00133-5/abstract
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10462-025-11352-1deleted by creator
Just adding my two cents to this because I have heard this before. The AI wasn’t programmed to do this. It was training to based off the racist shit on the internet that it takes from. Systemic racism just doing it’s thing.
To be clear, I didn’t mean to imply that AI was flawless or had no room for improvement, only that it has made real, tangible improvements. This is why it shouldn’t be used as a replacement for humans, but as a tool for humans.
@joe Please cite your sources. What improvements? How were these improvements tested, studied, and documented? Where were the results published?
I trust you’re capable enough to do your own Google search.
AI is very very different from llms. And no, an LLm can’t diagnose shit. A camera trained to detect certain cancerous cells in imaging works fantastically though
…although it was originally created to identify pastries
c/nothingeverhappens
Though I’m very happy for your friends, I will still vehemently say that AI is a net negative for humanity, it will end up killing us all
I can’t say AI hasn’t changed how I work, it has. Instead of going to Google, vendor docs, or the manpage for whatever code or system I am working on I will ask Claude or Gemini to take a stab at building the initial pass of the code or to look up what some cryptic error code means for me. Or even a better way to write some code that I think can be more concise.
The key I think is I never let it make the final decisions for me. The workflow is always look up information > shows it to me > ask for permission to do the thing > do the thing.
But none of that is “changing everything” in the way executives and the Sam Altman’s of the world want to profess. It is just a sometimes more efficient for me way of doing the same thing I was doing before.
A lot of people I have seen that crow about how they are using AI to change their work lives are just doing really fancy Github workflows and actions to automate something they used to still do manually for some reason. They rarely are doing anything that couldn’t be done with the time to research and test without AI.
Honestly, I didn’t jump on the AI hate train like everyone else did. And I was wrong. I literally only use it to make profile pictures on steam to make a sekiro photo. Other than I literally can live without it.
And at this point all of the damage it is doing to our communities; I am angry at this point that people in positions of power are blatantly ignoring the people they represent who say they don’t want this. This is almost as bad as the epstein corruption. Just blatantly lying to our faces and ignoring frustration.
Not just ignoring it but trying to grift to their supporters that these ‘contrarians’ aren’t Americans and flew in. I’m so unbelievably sick of conservative influence in my home country just using lies as a real mantra. Because everyone around me values money over anything else and it seems like they genuinely are dissonant and don’t understand this is a bubble waiting to burst unlike anything we have ever seen.
AI would be great if(currently its mixed for me,and whats the best thing you can do ATM ):
- The Datacenters didnt drain like 3 oceans and half of the power grid(or used solar energy + air cooling only,the only way to solve this is Local LLMs currently or specific AI solutions that isnt ChatGPT or Gemini and so on. )
- the LLM is not trained on copyrighted data(non-public domain) and not Paying the artists or not ask the original creator to train on their work.(Local LLMS partially solve this,and this requires specific LLMS too.)
- People did not use AI mindlessly to write Code for you(well i think this requires the user to use their brain)
and so on…
and AI should stay as a “TOOL”, not a full replacement for human work like most sane people do.
edit 1:
i forgot to mention AI is a big contributer to the AI crisis.I’ve seen nothing that AI can do that justifies the economic or ecological cost.
