General AI discussion

Originally Posted by Carth

Gosh how awful, all those clever business people that entertained the idea that AI would make them lots of money . . . I wonder how many bought a bridge too

Scunny has always been the most famous for some reason, you never hear of that small place on an Island up North . . the town/village called Twatt

But it has made them lots of money - the shares in their companies have risen quickly, and I am sure they will have divested some to make profits before/if the bubble bursts.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But it has made them lots of money - the shares in their companies have risen quickly, and I am sure they will have divested some to make profits before/if the bubble bursts.

oh nice, well that's ok as along as when the bubble pops their business won't pop with it

Originally Posted by Anonymouse

Actually, how did this site pass it?

Since you ask, it did used to fail at one point, not anymore.

[damien c]

AI is the latest "Buzz" just like "HD" was when it was becoming more "mainstream" even though it had existed for years before but people didn't know about it because it wasn't in a "Thin" TV etc.

Just like back when "HD" was being slapped on everything, remember the adverts and stickers "Red velvet HD cake mix", or "Maybelline luxurious HD Lipstick" or how about "New oak HD wooden table", AI is being slapped on the name of everything and unfortunately the sheeple are lapping it up whilst not realising just what these "Generation tools" are doing because they are not AI and never will be AI!!

The current thing being called "AI" is not AI, it's just a generation tool based of "training", just like when you get a new job that you have never done before, you get trained and then after a while you are capable of doing the job easier and quicker than when you first started.

This is the dangerous part about what is currently being called "AI", companies are replacing staff with it, and some might think that is good but answer me this, how are people supposed to survive when all the jobs are replaced by "AI" and no one is paying tax, so no money going to the government, meaning no money for benefits, how are people supposed to survive?

The worst thing about that is, that, that is being done without real AI, what would things be like if someone truly created AI?


You look at the current job market, look at most of the vacancies and you will see practically nothing but "Fast Food Delivery Driver", "Amazon Delivery Driver", "AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI", with occasionally something else thrown in, but the vast majority of jobs these days are "LLM Engineer", or job descriptions with "Must have LLM Engineering experience", "Must be AI Literate", "Must be able to positively create AI Prompts".

The job market and economic markets are being killed by these LLM's and people don't understand or are just ignoring what will happen when it all crashes because people are not able to survive.

The people at the top of the likes of nGreedia and others though will be sitting pretty though, until they wake up and realise that stopping the great unwashed from earning and being able to purchase items, means they start to lose money or an "AI" tries to take their jobs, just like the MP's, when an MP's job is threatened by an "AI" you will see demands to slow down the integration of "AI"!

Oh and let's not forget than "Anthropic" did a test and found that a "Virtual AI" would kill a "Virtual Employee" to save itself, it didn't know that it was "Virtual" but decided it was worth more than a human life, and that is just a LLM not true AI!


Here is my thought though, did we as humans not learn from our own ideas about how bad "AI" could be? Did The Terminator or The Matrix not make people think "Maybe we shouldn't do this" or is are the likes of Jensen Huang really that stupid that it hasn't crossed their minds?

[Carth]

Yep, I'm not one of those luddite type people, but without a magic money tree or a goose laying golden eggs, there has to be a cutoff point where benefits paid to the unemployed far exceeds the tax paid by the employed.

Yes I know that's far too simplistic