i have noticed that there are two competing narratives in the leftwingosphere:
A) ai is 100% slop garbage and a giant waste of electricity, pumping out garbage images with multiple hands and the text is nothing but hallucinations that can’t even count the number of r’s in “strawberry”
and at the same time
B) AI is going to take all our jobs and we will all be homeless and poor while tech billionaire CEOs turn us into slaves
Those are only conflicting statements if you believe that the market will not embrace worse products. It totally will so long as you have a group of people who lack the critical analysis skills to compare the products and arrive at the conclusion that the new one is worse.
It doesn’t help that the potential drivers of this action are massive conglomerates, so if a sweeping change comes from the top-down and is paired with a lot of propaganda (Marketing) then people will have no choice but to accept it as the standard.
I think that a lot of criticism about the actual quality of AI art is mixed, though. I feel like it has flaws, but I’ve seen arguments about flaws I don’t think are actually real problems with the technical quality.
Option A feels like wishful thinking or sour grapes or something to me. Community crossover with the humanities and fine arts is significant.
B is feeling a bit less imminent too; it just wasn’t clear a couple years ago that it will take more than raw compute. That being said, AGI is still bound to happen eventually, seeing as NGI did.
Yeah, I agree that in the long term those two sentiments are inconsistent, but in the short term we have to deal with allegedly misguided layoffs, and worse user experiences, which I think makes both fair to criticise. Maybe firing everyone and using slop AI will make your company go bankrupt in a few years, and that’s great; in the meantime, employees everywhere can rightfully complain about the slop and the jobs.
But yeah, I don’t think it’s fair to complain about how “inefficient” an early technology is and also call it “magic beans”.
It’s being rushed to market and is still very inefficient, but part of the reason it’s being rushed to market is because companies are getting ahead of themselves about the opportunity to fire human employees.
companies are getting ahead of themselves about the opportunity to fire human employees
But then if they produce garbage with AI people will buy the non-garbage product
Either it produces something of value or it doesn’t, if it’s producing garbage, lowering output, etc then it’s not a threat to our jobs because most people don’t like garbage, if it’s producing genuine value then it will be.
Early cars weren’t a threat to streetcars and trains and urban planning but modern cars have reshaped every North American city. You can criticize the inefficiency, poor quality, energy waste, etc. of the technology today while also pointing out the dangers of tomorrow.
But cars have always had value, we’re talking under an article that calls AI “magic beans”
How could magic beans which produce garbage enslave humanity under capitalism? Would you argue that cars which replaced horses as the primary mode of transport in a few years be called this?
You can argue that AI does some things badly, it’s still very very early on and the progress people are making is insane, like nothing I’ve seen before, but you can’t argue it is worthless and a giant threat to us at the same time, this is contradictory
we’re not in the slower than walking era, we’re in the ford model t era, i’m reading someone call the ford model t magic beans (eg. a scam) while millions of people are driving one every day and simultaneously worried it’s going to ruin transportation all over the north america
“It took years of hard work for us to steal beans from farmers, apply our unique brand of magic, and seek investment from our nation’s finest rubes and oafs,” a Beanco spokesman said. “Now DeepBean wants to steal our magic beans, rebrand the magic, and get money from their own buffoons and clods? It’s just not right.”
again, these are contradictory statements, it cannot be both a scam that has no value (eg. magic beans) and going to take all our jobs
You can absolutely leave and fund a “good” company, good luck getting anywhere.
If the product has value then people will buy it*
Humans have always created jobs, we love em, can’t get enough of em, in a capitalist system if people want to buy human made goods and services and those systems are profitable then there will be jobs for those people
This isn’t a communist dictatorship where you will be forced to buy government sponsored AI produce and no other choice is given to you
*I assume the products would have little logos on them like “non-gmo, organic, human made and farmed fruits!” etc
i have noticed that there are two competing narratives in the leftwingosphere:
A) ai is 100% slop garbage and a giant waste of electricity, pumping out garbage images with multiple hands and the text is nothing but hallucinations that can’t even count the number of r’s in “strawberry”
and at the same time
B) AI is going to take all our jobs and we will all be homeless and poor while tech billionaire CEOs turn us into slaves
Those are only conflicting statements if you believe that the market will not embrace worse products. It totally will so long as you have a group of people who lack the critical analysis skills to compare the products and arrive at the conclusion that the new one is worse.
It doesn’t help that the potential drivers of this action are massive conglomerates, so if a sweeping change comes from the top-down and is paired with a lot of propaganda (Marketing) then people will have no choice but to accept it as the standard.
I think that a lot of criticism about the actual quality of AI art is mixed, though. I feel like it has flaws, but I’ve seen arguments about flaws I don’t think are actually real problems with the technical quality.
Option A feels like wishful thinking or sour grapes or something to me. Community crossover with the humanities and fine arts is significant.
B is feeling a bit less imminent too; it just wasn’t clear a couple years ago that it will take more than raw compute. That being said, AGI is still bound to happen eventually, seeing as NGI did.
Yeah, I agree that in the long term those two sentiments are inconsistent, but in the short term we have to deal with allegedly misguided layoffs, and worse user experiences, which I think makes both fair to criticise. Maybe firing everyone and using slop AI will make your company go bankrupt in a few years, and that’s great; in the meantime, employees everywhere can rightfully complain about the slop and the jobs.
But yeah, I don’t think it’s fair to complain about how “inefficient” an early technology is and also call it “magic beans”.
are those competing?
It’s being rushed to market and is still very inefficient, but part of the reason it’s being rushed to market is because companies are getting ahead of themselves about the opportunity to fire human employees.
But then if they produce garbage with AI people will buy the non-garbage product
Either it produces something of value or it doesn’t, if it’s producing garbage, lowering output, etc then it’s not a threat to our jobs because most people don’t like garbage, if it’s producing genuine value then it will be.
Early cars weren’t a threat to streetcars and trains and urban planning but modern cars have reshaped every North American city. You can criticize the inefficiency, poor quality, energy waste, etc. of the technology today while also pointing out the dangers of tomorrow.
But cars have always had value, we’re talking under an article that calls AI “magic beans”
How could magic beans which produce garbage enslave humanity under capitalism? Would you argue that cars which replaced horses as the primary mode of transport in a few years be called this?
You can argue that AI does some things badly, it’s still very very early on and the progress people are making is insane, like nothing I’ve seen before, but you can’t argue it is worthless and a giant threat to us at the same time, this is contradictory
The cars that replaced horses were several iterations in, early “automobile” devices included steam powered carriages that moved slower than walking.
A technology may start with limited usage while still having lots of potential.
Technologies are always useless until they’re not.
we’re not in the slower than walking era, we’re in the ford model t era, i’m reading someone call the ford model t magic beans (eg. a scam) while millions of people are driving one every day and simultaneously worried it’s going to ruin transportation all over the north america
again, these are contradictory statements, it cannot be both a scam that has no value (eg. magic beans) and going to take all our jobs
It seems you’re firmly entrenched and going out of your way to see a contradiction. I’ll let you be.
Consider that there’s no widespread double-think happening and it could just be in your own head at this point.
https://mstdn.social/@Nickiquote/113901910776808096
Snake oil yesterday, magic beans today.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67977967
Going to hit 40% of jobs in 5 years the next
Is it magic beans and snake oil, eg. a scam or is it a legit threat, you can’t have both
@Eyekaytee @teawrecks
Fun fact: they are scarily compatible as long as the CEOs are not in their role thanks to meritocracy :)
Wouldn’t slop AI crash their motorcade or private jet pretty much immediately?
That can’t be possible, if they fire all their workers and produce AI slop then we will simply start a new company with human workers that doesn’t.
This isn’t communism we can simply start a new business at any time for any reason, with or without AI
@Eyekaytee
You seem to think, once again, that meritocracy is a thing.
It’s the exact same dynamic you are used to when it comes to yes-men and bootlickers.
Are they more productive? No. Do they get better paying job? Yes.
You can absolutely leave and fund a “good” company, good luck getting anywhere.
If the product has value then people will buy it*
Humans have always created jobs, we love em, can’t get enough of em, in a capitalist system if people want to buy human made goods and services and those systems are profitable then there will be jobs for those people
This isn’t a communist dictatorship where you will be forced to buy government sponsored AI produce and no other choice is given to you
*I assume the products would have little logos on them like “non-gmo, organic, human made and farmed fruits!” etc