Why are some people anti Ai

I'm assuming you wrote that with AI.

Very meta.

Hahaha

And the Luddites were right to be concerned

I couldn't read all that but I do urge you to read about the DPD AI that was naughty, and the one that gave away a brand new car for a dollar...

I have a lot of sympathy with the Luddites - gave presentation about the 4th industrial revolution and mentioned the Luddites at some length. My background is history, with a focus on the industrial revolution, but I've worked in IT for over a quarter of a century.

We are right to be wary of AI - it's not necessarily bad, but rushed implementations are likely to be. We all know of poorly tested systems (The PO and Horizon?) and there have been plenty of systems based on AI which didn't do all that was hoped - one of the tech giants developed a recruitment system, training it on existing employees - so it learnt that the ideal employee was male etc - confirming and compounding the bias and imbalance that already exists in IT, so the opposite of what was hoped for.

We also see with Tata Steel that despite plenty of notice that this was likely to happen, the government has done bog all to ensure any sort of retraining or alternative jobs, in an area that has already been hammered by the loss of mining. AI will bring changes to the job market, and like the Luddites, lots of people will become redundant because of new technology. We could plan for this, but I don't see many signs this will happen.

Plus many people simply have no idea of how AI works, and Hollywood has fed us plenty of tales about robots going rogue, so people worry based on that sort of understanding.

People have seen Terminator

Enjoy...

It's one great conspiracy spread by the robotic zombies who are trying to take over the world one hallucination medication at a time

Is this a paper you've written? Did you want suggestions on editing or...?

Visions of a hi-tech utopia proposed, not unreasonably, that humanity would be freed of unwanted and unsatisfying labour, enabling us all to do whatever we feel enhances our lives in safety and economic security. Societies would run on AI-driven automation, anticipating and meeting our needs in a timely, efficient manner.

It could still happen. But it won't. We should have been moving away from 'jobs' and 'wages' for the 70-odd years since this has been apparent. We should've been gradually restructuring economies so that funds became less concentrated among the owners of technology (in general) and more thoughtfully distributed among the majority.

Instead, the world's richest 0.01 per cent have amassed more and more of the world's wealth since the 1970s, while hundreds of millions more ordinary people have fallen into extreme poverty.

There isn't much time left to prevent this developing into the kind of hi-tech dystopia we now see in science fiction: a tiny group living in unimaginable comfort, with everyone else scrabbling desperately to survive in vile conditions. The concerns are similar to those of the Luddites, magnified to a global scale. Not a single industry in a few countries, but all 99.9% of human lives worldwide.

You might want to ask your chatbot, @NedLuddlite, what answers it proposes to this impending problem.

The terminator is coming.

Chats bots are not really AI, They are more like a fancy search engine.

AI is also a fancy search engine.

I work in science/tech and I'm also with the luddites on this. Current AI is biased and error prone and there are big risks with its use.

Yeah we're just being used for a critique before hand in I think.

Definitely an essay. Pre gcse? Better off posting on Reddit and saying something goady to get the tech bros fired up and firing off opinions you can pinch and sort and pass off as your own thinking… a kind of aggregation, a bit like how an ai chat bot works? Be the interface op! You can do it!

My DD wants to go into a creative industry either photography/media or some kind of creative writing role. She uses PS for some of her images but generally tries to keep manipulation to a minimum. She can spend HOURS on research, travel, lighting, processing and presentation of a piece. It is an endeavour and I fully support her learning her craft.

AI is learning VERY fast and although if you ask ChatGPT for an image it might still make mistakes it's not far from being accurate. There's already been huge debate for years over how images are produced (one that was heavily improved by PS won a national prize for nature photography) and where the line is. DD will have AI challenging her to prove her work is untouched and genuine. It takes DD up to a week to produce one good image, AI can do it instantly. It's like buying something mass-produced vs buying something handmade.

It's interesting that the science of photography challenged how we produced images in the Victorian age, which was by hand. This is another evolution. I hope in the end the two ways can coexist, but DD is hyper-aware that there may be big challenges to come in her future.

get the tech bros fired up

Yes, they're one of the main issues with AI.

Images are interesting- I went to a talk by Marcus du Sautoyand he was talking about how AI-generated images of gym weights - the sort you hold in your hand for bicep curls or whatever - often had a disembodied arm included, because most of the images it learnt from had someone using the weights, so it thought an arm was an integral part of it, and then built in that error.

This will be an important skill. I’ve read that some criminals are using 6 fingered gloves so they can say cctv of their crimes is doctored by AI, photographers who can prove the veracity of images through knowledge of digital construction will be in high demand. Good luck to your daughter, sounds really interesting and worthwhile

The most sinister things about AI are IMHO:

a) Making it impossible to know what is real and true.

b) Destroying the utility of the internet by flooding it with low quality articles / information which other AIs re-digest as input and eventually use as a basis to post yet more guff, meaning the signal to noise ratio crosses the threshold and makes the internet unusable.

Define "the people". You can't

I have a number of issues with AI.

• Philosophically, art and creativity is what makes us human, so why TF would you outsource that.
• When you test AI on something you know a lot about, it clearly talks bollocks, so you can safely presume it's also talking bollocks about stuff you know less about.
• It will create a skills shortage as people will no longer see the value in training in certain areas, and by the time we realise AI is not up to the job those valuable skills will be lost
• and perhaps most importantly, it's an environmental disaster: the LLM data sets are so large they use up vast quantities of energy and water. I don't think humanity can afford to waste those resources right now.

I think the most sinister thing is that it 'learns' from the internet. Which is a cesspit of racism, sexism, misogyny and misinformation. Considering the make-up of the tech industry, just look at the gaming scandals, it's going to be the truest case of 'garbage in-garbage out' in history.

The Terminator when it comes is going to be a whiny, racist incel.

Sick of the Luddites being misrepresented - they were rioting because they faced fucking starvation.

"But whilst these outrages must be admitted to exist to an alarming extent, it cannot be denied that they have arisen from circumstances of the most unparalelled distress. The perseverance of these miserable men in their proceedings, tends to prove that nothing but absolute want could have driven a large and once honest and industrious body of the people into the commission of excesses so hazardous to themselves, their families, and the community. At the time to which I allude, the town and county were burdened with large detachments of the military; the police was in motion, the magistrates assembled, yet all these movements, civil and military had led to—nothing. Not a single instance had occurred of the apprehension of any real delinquent actually taken in the fact, against whom there existed legal evidence sufficient for conviction. But the police, however useless, were by no means idle: several notorious delinquents had been detected; men liable to conviction, on the clearest evidence, of the capital crime of poverty; men, who had been nefariously guilty of lawfully begetting several children, whom, thanks to the times!—they were unable to maintain."

The Terminator when it comes is going to be a whiny, racist incel.

So true.

True @Jovacknockowitch it is interesting that they were presented (and used in popular language) as bad. Maybe not surprising as unsuccessful labour movements for the people aren't well liked by the establishment.

Machines, then computers, now AI are supposed to give us a utopia of ease and happiness. But they haven't. Because of resource hoarding.

Here's why I am worried about AI. I'm a copywriter, and one of the clients I work for uses an AI model to generate basic product descriptions for their website, which are then edited by a team of humans (including me).

The AI model is excellent at spelling, punctuation and grammar. It is pretty good at tone of voice. And it is utterly dreadful at accuracy. It regularly (as in between 80% and 100% of the time) produces complex, convincing hallucinations, describing features of the product that simply aren't there. These aren't based on any inputs the AI has been supplied with. It's simply freestyling based on what it's been trained on, which is previous website descriptions.

This doesn't matter much, because it's just descriptions of products. A human is checking them, and even if we fuck up, the human buying the product can check against the image on the website and see what's true.

However, AI is increasingly writing content for news sites, where hallucinations could be much more scary. If a news story told you Joe Biden had grown arms like a lobster, or that Donald Trump had exploded, you probably wouldn't believe it. But if it said Joe Biden had fallen asleep in a meeting with Putin, or Donald Trump hsd been diagnosed with dementia, you might.

Also, AIs are often used to pull content from other sites and repackage it. They can do this in seconds. Not hours. Seconds. So the hallucinated Sleeping Biden or Demented Trump story could suddenly be on multiple sites, gaining more apparent credibility with every appearance.

It still wouldn't be true. It would just be a hallucination from some AI somewhere. But how would you know? And if it tallied with your existing political position, how much effort would you put into checking? How long before you decided all the news was potentially made up, and stopped listening altgorthet?

That's why I'm scared by AI.