I respect you honest answer and fully understand your concerns. You have your own genuine reasons not to use AI.
How ever as things evolve and, since I could use company provided AI for almost two years now, I can tell you LLMs now are not simply a tool to predict the next word. They got so much more advanced than that. I am not advocating for AI companies. I would want to run one locally. Just trying to keep you updated on the subject because you seem to have a niche interest in it. But I guess it won't be enough reason to start using it.

That is a reasonable list I 100% agree with you. Many of them are part of my experience. Especially as using AI as an authority. You can't even convince them otherwise.

However, I've got a question for you: have you noticed any good or correct usage of AI.

That is a good strategy to govern AI companies and regulate AI.

Yea, just pointing out how tech hasn't really advanced much for normies except for computers and better but not new tech ... at least until capitalists all decided enshittification was the way to a golden future...

And now these greedy fucks are trying to take away massive advancements from the past so they can put it into a subscription model...

People do not hate MBAs nearly enough.

Yea, and if they're not a master in a field, they cannot validate its output.

Just because an LLM didn't output garbage for one query does not magically make it less likely to output garbage on a different topic. That's one of many reasons people in the know really hate this. You cannot just trust the output ever, which begs the question, "why do these rich goons all trust it enough to replace jobs?".

Because they're idiots that cannot validate any part of it.

yeah and I love computers but more and more I question if they have had much of a actual improvement on quality of life for the average person. Im not even sure if nock on effects matter that much. I mean it did allow us to map the human genome and do a lot on protein folding and drugs but im not sure we would not have been about the same level along even without them.

You don't need a masters anymore than you do to read a paper in the field. I mean you can say the exact same thing about web searches. You can use logic and reason combined with some double checking to validate its output. I personally have instructions to provide references for all answers it gives so that I can double check and get a better idea about the thing im looking into. It is disturbing though how much of its output is hidden behind its learning and it can't give you a reference.

go local

well i sometimes use ai (sorry i hope i will stop using it sometime soon) but because nobody wants a machine to do everything if it did everything humans wont have a productive way to spend their time (not accurate since i am not 100 percent against ai)

and also it justifies big tech control (nothing in this post was written by AI)

and a lot more

Tell me you've never designed and built something truly complicated without telling me.

Some things don't show up before you see the crash unless you know what you're doing intimately in many fields.

yeah but that is not what people are using llms for.

I will say, one benefit of the LLMs getting better at hacking are all the new jailbreaks for the Sony PS4 and PS5. Sony said it'd be impossible to support backwards compatibility for PS3 games on the PS5, but that's been proved wrong and there are now PS3 emulators being ported over for jailbroken PS5.

Recently I've been looking up ethically trained models and there do seem to be a handful out there. I haven't tried them yet.

I'm pretty ok with the ones that help subtitlers do their work but that's about it that I've found so far.

People misuse tools all the time. Why defend ignorance with ignorance?

Companies are not trying to make us more efficient, they're going to make their profit margin larger. This is a situation posed by Cory Doctrow in The Reverse Centaur's Guide to Life After AI. Imagine a hospital with 10 radiologists reviewing scans for cancer. Sam Altman sells the hospital an AI radiologist analysts that costs the same as 5 human salaries and can do the job of all 10 of them. Of course the AI is not foolproof, so hospital wants the AI analysis to be reviewed by humans, and they figure only 3 of the radiologists are needed for this. From the hospital's POV, they have a net savings of 2 radiologist salaries. This is the dream of companies that are implementing AI.

The 3 remaining radiologists are considered "reverse centaurs" since they're turned into results-checking drones. They will continue to be overloaded with cases and less intimately involved in the patient analysis, which will turn into general rubber stamping the AI output, rather than spending the time actually analyzing.

where are you going with this. you said people need a masters degree for what they where going to validate and its just not what people on doing with it. well normal people who knows with corporate stupidity. we are talking about typical folks here though.

You're the one that brought up master's degree. I'm just saying people need to know how to validate the output.

Just because idiots will misuse something doesn't magically make it ok for anyone else to misuse a tool, too.

you said "master in a field" that implies a masters degree.

My boss used to work in auto repair and loves sharing stories about how ChatGPT is very wrong about error codes for certain cars, many times in a way that's very easy to look up.

He then nearly spent $1000 on parts that would have been totally useless to the company because he couldn't be bothered to read the spec sheet and trusted ChatGPT to tell him which part we needed rather than the person actually working on that project.

Yes. It's hilarious to see both sides of the issue completely flip once LLMs can be recruited for anti-corporate purposes and I'm not immune--I hate AI but I also love fucking Sony over. So far, we've only had the shitty parts of the cyberpunk dystopia, it's nice to have a little ray of sunshine.

Mastery does not require a piece of paper.

I literally told you I don't even understand what your criticism about washing machines is. You're being extremely vague here.

I just told you that doing laundry went from something that used to take the better half of a day to something that was done in few hours and your response was that now double income couples have to squeeze in time for laundry in the weekeds.

Like what the fuck are you even saying? Yes people still have to do their laundry even after the invention of washing machine. It's only that it now takes less than third of the time of what it used to.

Its difficult to put more clearly than he already did, so I'll come at it from a different angle, see if that's any better.

You're at a factory on a machine that takes 10 people to operate it. You all get minimum wage. A new machine comes out that only takes 5 people to work it for the same output. That should be great, but for the worker it sucks. 5 people now have jobs and 5 people are unemployed. The people still working are still on minimum wage.

The salaries that are "saved" go mostly in the bosses pockets. Sure some goes to the manufacturer of the better machine, and some goes on taxes, but mostly it's value that we, the common man, has lost.

If it works out like they're hoping, AI will do this at a scale we've never encountered before.

Yes, you are correct about the washing machine. Now broaden your scope and think about how that washing machine fits into the bigger picture. Like it's one brick in a house. The brick might be upgraded, it's a smaller, tougher brick, maybe even cheaper, but now you need two bricks to make the same house.

There are many inventions that have greatly improved working conditions for people, the washing machine is a great example. That's not what the original commenter is criticizing. They're criticizing the larger structure, the house, not the brick.

If there weren't the washing machine (as well as cheap wrinkle free clothes - eliminating the iron and board and sewing), the microwave, the refrigerator for frozen foods, digital spreadsheets for doing the bills, and so on, the economy would naturally adjust to make affordable a one person income household.

We have all these advancements to save time and effort but the system has likewise adapted, requiring you to spend that extra time now at a job in order to live.

That's what the original comment was criticizing, this sleight of hand of promises, that sells us one thing but delivers only more work.

What I understood: Whenever we get a new tech, it makes our life easier (fact) but then the society expects more from us because "hey! now your life is easier, you have the time no?".

edit: I had more to say I apparently.

in the scope of washbasin:
Women used to do back breaking job for 2 hours while talking to their neighbors and friends by a river/well.

Now they don't have to do back breaking job, instead they have to do comfortable but soul crushing jobs with co-workers they cannot naturally (professionalism) mingle with.

Please read the full context. What you just said has nothing to do with the washing machine example I provided that Fleppen was seemingly disagreeing with.

This isn't a loom that helps workers produce fabric faster but their boss takes all the profits. It's a piece of technology that people use in their home on their free time to perform a task in a fraction of the time it used to take before washing machines. It's a massive time saver and that seems a rather uncontroversial claim to me so I have no clue what they're actually taking issue with.

To your point: I don't disagree. In the best case scenario AI will take everyone's job. That is not the issue as most people only work for money anyway. The issue is what follows from that: a handful of people making all the profits while the rest get nothing. The solution to this is however not that we all become luddites but that we figure out a way to spread that wealth to everyone fairly.

The time that has been saved by the washing machine meant more time to join the workforce meaning 2 income households can now provide the same level of value as 1 income households used to. Except they cant. Also its more than simply the washing machine.

The point was that the extra time has not been given to us, but allowed to be taken by the rich.

Edit : yes time has been saved. Its not actually properly benefitted us in the way you'd imagine though.

people that actively move to a federated community because their last one got enshitified tend to be against centralized platforms and are hyper aware of the potential for enshitification.

What could be more centralized (and enshitified) than AI? It's literally consuming content and regurgitating back to you.

I would replace "society" with "capitalists"

well I did not realize your bar was that nebulous. Honestly its hard to discuss without really knowning what you mean by the statement. Some vague notion of level a person would need to be in your head? 10000 hours?

Why do you insist on being so pedantic over such a simple concept?

I mean this reply is one I would put a mirror up to. You put this level of user knowledge up but you turn around to not only say my assumed definition is wrong, but go on to not further explain it when asked and instead make an ad hominem argument about the nature of my discourse. I mean Im being pretty specific here on the issue. Honestly your issue with something you made at the start pretty much makes our whole discussion kinda pointless. It would have to be restarted with your terms defined. Here is the thing though. Regardless of your definition what I have said would stand. You change change masters degree to whatever you define mastery is. 10k hours whatever. if you wish just change it to the generic mastery phase. The real problem is you out of the blue did not like the master degree supposition I made but it makes no difference in the discourse chain.

It was a time consuming task but it was one done as a job. Cleaning clothes was a whole industry, and getting your clothes laundered was generally affordable and something you could pay others to do for you. The washing machine allows people to do it themselves easier, but with needing to buy the machine, paying for detergent and additives, water use, keeping up with maintenance, it's not for free. What the washing machine did was take away an industry where people had paying jobs to do the task, and turn the task into a self-care obligation that locks you into consumership. Can you make your own washing machine? Your own detergent? You have to buy those things and then do the labor yourself, unpaid. Who really benefited? The laundry industry was a tough one to work in but it was a paid job for the working class. It's now a way for corporations to make money off of unpaid labor.

I like Sony's getting fucked over, I'm miserable that there's no outlet for home brewers to be worlds first anymore.

Paying for someone else to wash your clothes was a luxury for the rich and upper middle class back then just like it is today. This was not an option for the large majority of households.

Laundry was overwhelmingly unpaid household labor, done mainly by women, and it was one of the most time-consuming and physically demanding domestic tasks. Doing a single load by hand could take the better part of a day of heating water, scrubbing, rinsing, wringing, and ironing. Once electric machines became common, that work collapsed to a small fraction of the previous hours and physical effort

I feel like you are cutting society too much slack.

Yes, capitalists set the tone, but people in our immediate surroundings (neighbors, parents, schools) are the ones who enforce the rules.

20 years ago: You got an email? Well... you'll see it when you open your personal/work computer.

Now: You got an email? Don't you have a mobile phone? Every second you miss is an insult, especially if they saw you with your phone in your hand once while talking to them (you look at your phone AAAALLL THE TIME no???)

If there weren't the washing machine (as well as cheap wrinkle free clothes - eliminating the iron and board and sewing), the microwave, the refrigerator for frozen foods, digital spreadsheets for doing the bills, and so on, the economy would naturally adjust to make affordable a one person income household.

I think you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Look at the collapse of the USSR and think again. And in general, try living like you described for at least a month.

UPD: I think the problem is not that you can't do your laundry because greedy capitalists have taken your time, but that you don't enjoy your work. And it's not about atomization, but about oversaturation with dopamine. To feel better, you don't need to go into the woods, but just stop using the Internet outside of work. Set aside half an hour a day for networking and no longer touch the Internet or anything on the Internet. And you feel mutch better.

how do people like individual entrepreneurs fit into this picture?

Like a lot of things that's very location dependent. Geographical region, level of development, point in history etc. You and I are both correct, for example my scenario is accurate to ancient Rome or a pre-industrial European village, your scenario is true in 19th century Western American homesteaders or deeply rural communities. A similar thing happened with sewing machines where the invention of a modern tool outsourced a skilled, paid job (making clothes) to unpaid domestic labor. Did some individuals without prior access to those professional services benefit? Of course, but it meant that the bespoke clothing industry and the clothes laundering industries both deflated to the point of not being widely or cheaply available anymore, and the labor that once was a paid job was expected to be done for free.

My point was that it is not such an easy thing to point to that instantly made everyone's lives better.

Because everybody is?

I wanted to add, since I haven't seen anyone else mention it, I also hate AI and refuse to use it because it is the focal point of the biggest stock market bubble, pump-and-dump scam, that we have ever seen. When it pops, it will dwarf the housing market crash of 2007ish. It is so blatantly obvious to so many of us and we are powerless to stop it beyond boycotting and repeatedly voicing the flaws, failures and misinformation rampantly circulating the LLM technology. I hate "AI" for all the reasons everyone else has stated, but I also hate it for what the AI bubble will inevitably do to the worldwide economy and anyone who doesn't have a million dollar safety net.

I also hate "AI" because a LLM is not AI at all. Not in the sense of a general artificial intelligence. AI was a label applied to LLMs by marketing douchebags to hype their bullshit machine. But this is false. LLMs are not AI, they are not intelligent. But LLMs present the illusion of intelligence and that is enough to keep the game of musical chairs going, for now.