Even if I grant that there’s a few super helpful uses that are good for humanity (and I don’t grant that at all), it’s still actively harmful to the other 99.3% of us.
Unless you’re saying it can end cancer, keep us young forever, provide literally limitless energy, and instantaneous networking, all while giving us potential to explore the universe, then it’s still not worth what it’s costing us RIGHT NOW.
Until you can make it do any of that without being owned or pushed by CEOs for money, then it will never be worth it.
Sure it could be useful if it didn’t cost anything and did everything, but that’s about as far as I believe it.
It should stay in the research and theory phase until it’s perfect. And it never will be, hence most people attitudes on it. No. 00000001% change of finding a good execution of a use is worth what it is costing us to try out.
The issue is people downoting him for stating a simple fact.
Like, I also use AI a bit, it can hepp productivity a lot too, and my opinion is still that overall if we had no ML at all the world woild be a better place than now, and that’s despite the many extremely good use cases for ML and even LLMs.
Even having a conversation about that will take a while to happen because most people think that AI literally means something like ChatGPT.
I don’t know enough about the other kinds to say much definitively, but I do completely invalidate generative AI being of any possible use as I understand it. Other than as a tech demo. Seeing what Sora could do was interesting as a matter of curiosity about what it was possible to get to happen with it current tech.
But I don’t think it should ever be used as literally anything other than a demo of what is literally possible.
Okay, I’m positive it’s a waste of energy since it doesn’t work.
It does work for me. I use it and it is helping a lot.
If everyone’s just gonna down vote this I’m not sure there’s any room for understanding in this crowd
Looks like you’re the one without understanding.
Even if I grant that there’s a few super helpful uses that are good for humanity (and I don’t grant that at all), it’s still actively harmful to the other 99.3% of us.
Unless you’re saying it can end cancer, keep us young forever, provide literally limitless energy, and instantaneous networking, all while giving us potential to explore the universe, then it’s still not worth what it’s costing us RIGHT NOW.
Until you can make it do any of that without being owned or pushed by CEOs for money, then it will never be worth it.
Sure it could be useful if it didn’t cost anything and did everything, but that’s about as far as I believe it.
It should stay in the research and theory phase until it’s perfect. And it never will be, hence most people attitudes on it. No. 00000001% change of finding a good execution of a use is worth what it is costing us to try out.
The issue is people downoting him for stating a simple fact.
Like, I also use AI a bit, it can hepp productivity a lot too, and my opinion is still that overall if we had no ML at all the world woild be a better place than now, and that’s despite the many extremely good use cases for ML and even LLMs.
Even having a conversation about that will take a while to happen because most people think that AI literally means something like ChatGPT.
I don’t know enough about the other kinds to say much definitively, but I do completely invalidate generative AI being of any possible use as I understand it. Other than as a tech demo. Seeing what Sora could do was interesting as a matter of curiosity about what it was possible to get to happen with it current tech.
But I don’t think it should ever be used as literally anything other than a demo of what is literally possible.