←back to thread

LLM Inevitabilism

(tomrenner.com)
1616 points SwoopsFromAbove | 6 comments | 15 Jul 25 04:35 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
mlsu ◴[15 Jul 25 05:02 UTC] No.44567960[source]▶
I hate AI. I'm so sick of it.

I read a story about 14 year olds that are adopting AI boyfriends. They spend 18 hours a day in conversation with chatbots. Their parents are worried because they are withdrawing from school and losing their friends.

I hate second guessing emails that I've read, wondering if my colleagues are even talking to me or if they are using AI. I hate the idea that AI will replace my job.

Even if it unlocks "economic value" -- what does that even mean? We'll live in fucking blade runner but at least we'll all have a ton of money?

I agree, nobody asked what I wanted. But if they did I'd tell them, I don't want it, I don't want any of it.

Excuse me, I'll go outside now and play with my dogs and stare at a tree.

replies(11): >>44567975 #>>44568014 #>>44568043 #>>44568055 #>>44568079 #>>44568081 #>>44568083 #>>44568912 #>>44569011 #>>44569275 #>>44569496 #
1. freshtake ◴[15 Jul 25 05:21 UTC] No.44568043[source]▶
The issue, unfortunately, is that society has failed to recognize the real dangers of social technologies (social media, social AI, perhaps AI in general). 30 years from now if we're lucky, we'll be watching senate hearings with AI billionaires being asked how they didn't realize their products were so harmful.
replies(4): >>44568059 #>>44568109 #>>44568183 #>>44568385 #
2. mlsu ◴[15 Jul 25 05:23 UTC] No.44568059[source]▶
These senate hearings are happening right now.

There is no moment in history when we all look back and go, ah, that was a mistake. Nope. That only happens right now, we're all creating the world we want to live in today.

3. visarga ◴[15 Jul 25 05:32 UTC] No.44568109[source]▶
I am more and more convinced that social networks are causing the increased political instability and breakdown of communication. In the past media was centralized. So the powers that be focused on it and controlled the message. We had a kind of common understanding and language. Some idealize BBC or the great newspapers of the past, but they have been lying to us since forever. Remember the WMD discussions leading to Iraq war?

But now, because everyone can publish, they lost control. So instead they are bombarding us with all sorts of contradictory theories and conspiracies. We have come to be unable to communicate. And maybe that is the intended goal. If you can't control the message, make communication itself worthless. People choose emotionally and based on tribal allegiances. It has become an identity war. We can't even communicate with our parents now, there is an "explanatory gap" between identity tribes.

replies(1): >>44571428 #
4. sampl3username ◴[15 Jul 25 05:46 UTC] No.44568183[source]▶
Oh but they realize. They just don't care because they (the Elites, the wealthy, who are the real decisionmakers, not the politicians) have enough money to never have to interact with the proletariat, the common man, ever again. Enough money to be shielded from the consequences from their actions.
5. ◴[15 Jul 25 06:24 UTC] No.44568385[source]▶
6. alextingle ◴[15 Jul 25 14:20 UTC] No.44571428[source]▶
It was the BBC that linked me directly to Hans Blix's reports on the UN's search for WMD in Iraq. It was that that convinced me that it was all made up bullshit. It was much more convincing than the obvious wishful thinking that was coming out of the US and UK governments.

For sure social media is propagating conspiracy theories, some of which are the modern equivalent of "Saddam can deploy his WMD in 45 minutes", but I don't agree that old media was doing the same. Quite the opposite.