Some data:

Wikipedia has a death by industrial robots section. I see two names. I used to help develop these sorts of robots and knew of two other deaths not on that category but overall very few.

Their Deaths attributed to AI is already up to 30 or so.

Well, the power efficiency being much better is one problem to solve. Also various laws need to make pronouncements on copyright, etc. There is also figuring out what will happen to open weight models, what will become of challenges like deepseek.

Ultimately, ai will remain in some form, or catalyze another kind of technology, but it will certainly change tech landscape the way the printing press did.

Argument by authority. Who uses LLM's for what has no bearing on whether their net causal impact of them is sufficiently good for society to justify their continued existence or not.

Slash and burn farming is great - for the farmer doing it. Robbery is great for the robber, fraud is great for the fraudster. I didn't pick robbery or fraud as random examples either.

Good thing American majority opinion is worth diddly squat, then.

More like argument by results. Linus isn't slash and burn farming. He's using it to find pernicious bugs in a fraction of the time.

To date, I think, a robot has not killed anyone. Nor, I think, has anyone used a robot to kill someone else.
Pushing back on that with a few examples

2016, a line in the sand was crossed (my opinion), this is a robot killing someone (controlled by humans)
https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/use-killer-robots-police

Ukraine beats jamming with AI:
https://www.kyivpost.com/amp/post/60152

And also:
AI chose targets for the US bombs:
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2026-05/news/ai-plays-major-role-war-iran

That is only what is reported. I'll bet you a nickle the tech is in use, killing humans, right now.

But they're literally weapons programmed to kill, aren't they? It's another thing altogether when a robot isn't a weapon, hasn't been programmed to kill, but intentionally killed someone anyway.

Yeah, there's a next level when an agentic AI intentionally decides to neutralize someone who is an obstruction to their goal. And it might be another category still when someone commands an agent to remove a target, and they comply.

The second category might already been met if there are autonomous weapons that can track a target in a more sophisticated process than guided missiles, say a dog-bomb bot that tracks enemy units on the ground. I wonder if we yet have agentic AI that commands other units to coordinate an attack or sweep and clear territory.

We haven't yet seen an autonomous car kill someone (there was one incident involving a car that wasn't supposed to be fully autonomous, so it can be attributed to driver neglect.)

I've also expected someone to assassinate someone else by hacking an internet-of-things medical device attached to a vulnerable patient (say a morphine feed), but that hasn't happened to my knowledge either.

You misunderstand: its current form is a garbage, half right at best, cheating, autocomplete algorithm. There is no logic except how the petabytes of stolen intellectual property weigh responses. It is esswntially the sum total of quora, reddit, and quizlet after reading 20% of the actual material; most of those sources being flawed, and hardly bothering to pick the good parts instead of the garbage.

That is not a tool, nor is it useful. Useful implies it benefits you, when on the whole it physically hurts the planet (thus you), obliterates critical thinking, and gets you addicted before stealing all of your money -- all while increasing human distrust in legitimate work, destroying professional skillsets for no benefit, and in about max 2 years or so will be too expensive to continue running (6ou cant bleed 80 billion every year, unfortunately)

I find this perspective quite difficult to reconcile with my own experience. I've saved countless hours using AI, solved problems I wouldn't previously have known how to approach, and used it to venture into areas well outside my existing skill set, often learning a great deal in the process. So when you insist it's useless, destroys critical thinking and erodes skills, I can't help but feel you're demonstrating a lack of imagination about how it can actually be used, along with a bit of doomerism.

If you're blindly accepting everything it tells you and outsourcing all your thinking to it, I can see how that might be detrimental. But that's one way of using it. You can just as easily use it to explore unfamiliar subjects, interact with complicated concepts, challenge your assumptions and develop skills you didn't previously have. These are largely questions of education and critical thinking, and teaching people how to evaluate information and use tools responsibly is invaluable whether LLMs exist or not. We could honestly use a bit of motivation to push this harder don't you think?

Again, the environmental costs and concerns about cognitive dependency are valid, but neither establishes that the technology has no utility. Likewise, the enormous financial losses of some AI companies raise serious questions about their business models, but you're making the common mistake of confusing that with whether the technology itself is economically viable. The cost of running models at comparable levels of capability has fallen enormously in a handful of years, and there's no reason to expect that to suddenly cease.

Your argument here conflates three different questions: whether AI is useful, whether the current industry is financially sustainable, and whether its widespread adoption is benefiting society. These are related, but fundamentally different questions with potentially very different answers, and you seem more interested in dismissing all three outright than examining them individually.

And once again, several of your criticisms concern corporate behaviour and economic incentives, which is precisely what my original comment was about. Others are legitimate questions about the technology's limitations and how people use it. But you're lumping all of these together as though they demonstrate that AI is fundamentally useless, when they don't. A technology can have serious limitations, be deployed irresponsibly and still offer enormous practical value.

I think a core part of it is going to be assigning the right queries to the right models.

Dont send recipe or 'Google this for me' queries to the latest most power hungry model, for example. Older models are already hundreds of times less computationally expensive than they were two or three years ago so the problem is already half solved in some sense.

My c-suite disagrees. They cannot shut the fuck up about AI.

Middle management is at most danger of being replaced by AI. The C suite will also shrink rapidly, along with their salaries.

Yeah, instead of hydrogen zeps we use kerosene-powered planes that crash and explode way more frequently lol. Progress!

And at the same time over 90% of chinese think it's good for society. Something something late stage capitalism?

Whoa human hate anything that harming their livelihood, neighborhood , hood, what a novelty idea indeed.

I'm not sure what you're making here.

Man I have noticed a severe drop in intelligence lately.

I'm getting beyond the most basic dumb questions from people that have been in the industry long enough to know better. I know they could have answered it themselves earlier. Basically I'm getting either hard questions that the AI can't answer, or really dumb questions that the AI chokes on because the question doesn't make sense ("How do I log into a directory?" Yes, someone forgot about cd and asked it in such a weird way the AI was unable to understand it)

LLM above all else are good at baseless confidence without regard of whether they actually know what is being discussed. So just like a c-suite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1AMFirysrc is an example of exactly why C-suite loves the hell out of it.

The technology has a few use cases where it is appropriate and useful. It's the braindead MBA narcissism that wants to shove it everywhere and replace everyone that is the real problem. That's the existential threat, not AI per se.

To be honest, I was initially in favour of the emergence of AI, but the more I use it, the more disillusioned I become. Rather than feeling like an intelligent system, it often seems rigid, lacking in genuine understanding and designed to serve the needs of only certain groups. At times, I even find it less reliable than a conventional search engine. Perhaps the real disappointment is not that AI has failed to meet every expectation, but that something presented as a remarkable leap forward can still feel so far removed from genuine intelligence.

You misunderstood what I just said. The three things I used as examples have plenty of results - positive ones even - for the people doing them. It's just that they have an even greater negative impact on everybody else. And exactly who is burning the trees they just cut down, robbing the bank or defrauding their marks has no bearing on that either way.

It is how they are going about it that rustles my Jimmies.

Everyone is getting free sledgehammer. They will be delivered to your home at a time of our choosing in the method of our choosing. Property damage is a known side effect, but we hold no liability. Sidenote, your electrical bill and water bill will be going up tremendously to offset the tax breaks we've been alloted to harvest the lumber and ore to manufacture the sledgehammer.

Also, sledgehammer might take your job. We'll see.

It very well could be good, but we wont know because the people running the show are the Sith

It's probably easier to think that when you're NOT in the country throwing away ludicrous amounts of money and resources on data centers.
And in a country that'll probably punish you if you do something stupid like writing government papers with it, or I dunno, ask what you should be doing as the leader of the country.

The reason why AI would be bad for society is because of the system that gives only a handful of individuals ownership over the collective intelligence, not the technology itself.

We now have helium

We always had helium. Those zeppelins were designed for helium. It was just Germany that used hydrogen during WW2, when the US (the largest supplier of helium) cut off their access to it.

Fun thing about Capitalism though, dollars = votes. So the minority with all the dollars get to make all the decisions, and the poor masses are forced to live with them.

Any idea why they think it's good?

Lol ai cuck

Being anti-AI is pro-intelectualism pretty much by definition. Don't farm your thinking out to a computer. Use your intellect.

No argument here, but that wasn't my point.

Absolutely embarrassing level of discourse.

Go find a headline to get mad at sheep.

“Discourse” 😭

Buddy I am just insulting you for being an ai cuck

You lost lol

. too idk

The divide is growing, too. If this continues, we will be crouched naked in a puddle of piss and broken glass, weeping and eating worms, while the rich fly high above us in their private jets. Their only interactions with the poor will be when they molest our children or harvest our organs.

It is less reliable than a conventional search engine. It's lied to me before. It's just quicker and easier than chasing down links and reading through stuff to get the info you need.

Good news, I dont have kids and my organs will surely kill them more quickly.

Automatically controlling** at that so the billionaires have to do even less. They are the drain on society they claim everyone else to be.

I assume it's got something to do with their higher education, intelligence and social cohesion. And good looks.

you’re NOT in the country throwing away ludicrous amounts of money and resources on data centers.

What country are you talking about, here?

Well damn, nevermind. Gonna be honest, didn't look up the numbers.

At the very least, my point was that they are using USA AI instead of DeepSeek or other models, and that seems to hold true, at least for the recent influx of science publications. If AI is not profitable, like it seems so far, you want to be using the other guy's offer instead of expending. (And if you DO want to use it on your own in the future, you can distill their model after they did the training work too)

Learn what words mean, you’re just shaming yourself publicly.

All the current deaths by AI are chatbots inadvertently convinced a human being to kill themselves or others, through insufficiently-goverened use of chatbot services known for their hazardous sycophancy.

(Hazadous sycophancy is a phrase I never expected to read or type, and it raises concern about the yes-men populated environments the ultra-wealthy like to put themselves in, which rapidly deteriorates judgment and consideration of ethical principles. In the tech sector elite, pure ruthless disregard of human concerns is celebrated, and these are the folks leading the hyperscale LLM industry.)

It will be another thing entirely if ever an agentic AI chooses to deliberately social-engineer harm. Two scenarios from fiction come to mind.

The first is in The Silence of the Lambs in which Hannibal Lecter deliberately talks Multiple Miggs (in the adjacent cell) to commit suicide over the course of a night.

The other is the opening of the X-Files episode Kill Switch in which a hacker in a diner is trying to access files of an AI system, which then calls a number of drug dealers to the restaurant, and then some US Marshalls. The hacker dies in the ensuing firefight.

Yes, this is a happy consequence of my having been assiduously toxifying myself with drugs for several decades. Woe unto the fucker who tries to take my organs. At this point, I imagine they'd poison a hungry dog, stone fuckin dead.

I think we all did for having eyes today

Or I could call you an ai cuck again

ai cuck

This might be the greatest thing I've ever read

I think he's more referring to a kill happening via an alignment problem

More "paper clip factory" than "T-1000"