AI one-percenters seizing power forever is the real doomsday scenario, warns AI godfather::The real risk of AI isn’t that it’ll kill you. It’s that a small group of billionaires will control the tech forever.

    • errer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Might be one of the key democratizing forces us plebs will have…I do suggest people try out some of the open solutions out there already just to have that skill in their back pockets (e.g. GPT4All).

  • clearleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    At first the fear mongering was about how AI is so good that you’ll be able to replace your entire workforce with it for a fraction of the cost, which would be sooo horrible. Pwease investors pwease oh pwease stop investing in my company uwu

    Now they’re straight up saying that the people who invest the most in AI will dominate the world. If tech companies were really all that scared of AI they would be calling for more regulations yet none of these people ever seem to be interested in that at all.

    • Sharklaser@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you’ve spotted the grift here. AI investment has faltered quickly, so a final pump before the dump. Get the suckers thinking it’s a no-brainer and dump the shitty stock. Business insider caring for humanity lol

      • Pohl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Either ML is going to scale in an unpredictable way, or it is a complete dead end when it comes to artificial intelligence. The “godfathers” of ai know it’s a dead end.

        Probabilistic computing based on statistical models has value and will be useful. Pretending it is a world changing AI tech was a grift from day 1. The fact that art, that cannot be evaluated objectively, was the first place it appeared commercially should have been the clue.

        • Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Probabilistic computing based on statistical models has value and will be useful. Pretending it is a world changing AI tech was a gift from day 1.

          That is literally modelling how your and all our brains work, so no, neuromorphic computing / approximate computing is still the way to go. It’s just that neuromorphic computing does not necessarily equal LLMs. Paired with powerful mixed analogue and digital signal chips based on photonics, we will hopefully at some point be able to make neural networks that can scale the simulation of neurons and synapses to a level that is on par or even superior to thr human brain.

          • Pohl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            A claim that we have a computing model that shares a design with the operation of a biological brain is philosophical and conjecture.

            If we had a theory of mind that was complete, it would simply be a matter of counting up the number of transistors required to approximate varying degrees of intelligence. We do not. We have no idea how the computational meat we all possess enables us to translate sensory input into a contiguous sense of self.

            It is totally valid to believe that ML computing is a match to the biological model and that it will cross a barrier at some point. But it is a belief that does not support itself with empirical evidence. At least not yet.

            • Restaldt@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              A claim that we have a computing model that shares a design with the operation of a biological brain is philosophical and conjecture

              Mathematical actually. See the 1943 McCulloch and Pitts paper for why Neural networks are called such.

              We use logic and math to approximate neurons

          • Sharklaser@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Neural networks have been phenomenal in the results they have achieved, out doing support vector machines, random trees, Markov models etc… But I do wonder if there is a bias towards it being able to mimick what the brain does like the other post said, and where are the limits.

            For example in medicine, we want to spot unknown correlations to improve things like drug discovery, stratified medince, strange patterns in disease within a population that suggests unknown factors at play… There might be a mathematical model better that convolutional neural networks that doesn’t mimick the brain, but we maybe need an ai to develop that, maybe like deep thought in hgttg!

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love hearing these takes.

        “TVs are just a fad. All the good content is on radio!”

        “The Internet is just a sandbox for nerds. No normal person will use it.”

        “AI is just a grift. It won’t ever be useful.”

        Lmao sure Jan.

        • Sharklaser@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          AI has been, is and will be very useful, but it’s in an over hype phase poised for a drop. I don’t think you understood what I was saying

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            it’s in an over hype phase poised for a drop

            AI isn’t a stock.

            a final pump before the dump.

            This is not how investment capital works.

            I understood what you were saying.

  • echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    God I can’t stand these people who are only basically only worried about AI’s affect on the stock market. No normal person would even notice. we have more realistic issues with AI.

    • Silinde@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s great. Now try training that model on a 4080 and you’ll see it’ll take significantly longer. Try amassing the data needed for training on your home PC and see how much longer beyond that which you’ll need. There’s a reason the current race is down to just a few companies, it costs pennies to run queries on an existing model, millions to build and train that model in the first place.