why do i have a feeling if i asked you to tell me what hallucinations are in a technical sense i would get a regurgitated answer from google?

being blind to the obvious doesn’t help anyone, man. anyone who has genuinely worked on or even just with these tools knows that they are capable of producing quality outputs. sometimes they mess up, sure, but it also can work 1000000x faster than you can. the energy problem in turn is a valid discussion but this is just being oblivious to the obvious.

why do you guys all mistake the climate of early tech adoption as an indicator of the technology itself being bad? were you not alive for the rise of the internet or something? i think you guys all just hate corporatism, not AI, but for some reason can’t take the logical step to that conclusion.

you’re not going to get anywhere with these people.

i’m fairly certain most people are much too threatened on a fundamental level by these technologies to be rational about it. we can sit here throwing data and studies at them if we want, showing they are objectively wrong but it won’t do anything effectual.

the way i see people like this discussing the technology reminds me a lot of schoolyard behavior. the feelings it inspires in them are too much to discretely express so we get obviously incorrect quips and jabs instead of thoughtful discussion, to the roar of the crowd

so, i don’t necessarily disagree that a lot of AI shit on the market rn is useless, trite bullshit but then again so was almost every tech product between 2000 and now. some people preferred to live their lives like they did before the digital revolution. you don’t really see people claiming the internet is useless anymore, tho, do you?

sure, you believe you can do things better without it. and that might be true. unfortunately, some others believe (correctly) that they can handle a larger cognitive workload using these tools, which is their purpose. regardless of your opinion on AI, anyone well educated enough in the actual industry knows that there is an additive, non-zero nootropic benefit that can be achieved. we would say the same thing about giving someone access to Google on a school test, of course they perform better! except with AI i think there is a lot of emotionally driven thinking causing people to not come to the obvious conclusions here. just because some people can figure out how to make use of these tools in a beneficial manner and you cannot doesn’t mean the tools themselves are bad.

the anti-AI horde always likes to harp about “b-b-b but my 6 fingers” and “it only can write in corpo-speak,” amongst other things. truthfully speaking, the sheer volume of work an AI is capable of doing vastly outweighs the fact that it makes mistakes in negligible proportions. i see these techs derided as “averaging-machines,” people with a straight face seriously saying this as if something that does average on virtually every cognitive task at all times isn’t already handily outcompeting its human counterparts. sitting here performatively acting does nothing to counter the fact that the most significant minds in this field of research can all at least agree that this won’t remain the status quo for long. these technologies are in a position to vastly outpace any human being’s individual economic output, like it or not.

you are in direct competition with these individuals and technology. i, honestly, hope you understand the “pro-AI” sentiment being directed at you is less a commentary on your choice surrounding the matter and more a warning that in the future you are going to be handily outcompeted by those who do choose to use these tools and exploit them to their full benefit. it’s easy to toss stones from the comfort of the present, but, when you’ve been jobless for 5 years because no one hires the “old” kind of worker maybe you will reconsider at least keeping up with the times. i don’t mean that as scorn, truthfully. it’s a fair warning.