Kind of goes to show how out of touch and insular the tech exec sphere can be. Almost everyone I interact with in reality has a deep distain for LLMs and their touted trajectory.
People with disdain for AI are probably largely limited to one “elite” or another. Of course this goes for practically any cause. It’s basically impossible to to get large-scale momentum behind anything that goes against prevailing economic interests.
Of course he was still out of touch with that particular group, and if they all try really hard, maybe they can get some narrative out there, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Unless corpos discover how they can use these clashing views for market segmentation or something.
Getting more precision and consistency in the images requires additional technical configuration and actual artistic skill such that it more resembles using Photoshop and similar software. But what can be done with prompting is a lot more impressive than what can be done with rudimentary Photoshop skills and a big photo library to work from.
Either way, I can't draw a line between art and non-art, but I can draw one between humans I respect and humans I don't.
We basically have the situation that some people thought they were super clever by finding out that you can steal from a blind beggar, enhancing their productivity, getting those results. Sure you can do that, they're blind after all, just yoink it; but you cannot undo it, and we all saw. A person who would do such a thing will never understand why people who would not do such a thing are appalled at them. And they think they don't have to care because they now have "AI" and can just brute force or work around consent. I don't know how exactly this will fall on their feet but what goes up will come down.
I'll thank the universe for not knowing anyone that does this.
My grandma can't tell the difference between reality and AI. My parents and older family members either treat AI as a dog ("wow, look at this fun trick") or, worryingly, as Google.
People younger than about 35 I know dislike AI, ranging from mild annoyance up to passionate hatred, except for the people who are all-in on it. Calling something "slop" causes a fun diverse reaction, with some people offended on behalf of an LLM, and with others poking fun at the slop referenced.
The vast majority simply doesn't seem to care outside of annoyance at AI being shoehorned into everything (but that might as well have been the web 3.0/blockchain/web 2.0/whatever term manages to milk investors).
They might not know that those assets are AI-generated. It's easy to not know if you don't have this stuff (somehow) constantly shoved into your face.
I had a sticker on my water bottle from a brewery for several days. Just last night did I realize that it was completely AI-generated. The design was just text. Anyone could've made it with any other application, and yet, they chose to use AI to do it. The font was a typical font used by AI, and the hero text had low-res dots on it, a tell-tale for one-shot AI art. I threw it away.
The idea that "distain for AI" is limited to "one 'elite' or another" is most definitely not borne out by any polling data. "Of course this goes for practically any cause" seems to be an opinion based on air. Many, many people across all social strata (except maybe millionaires/billionaires) are deeply invested in a wide variety of causes to make the world a better place.
It's a lot less annoying to deal with and more consistent. Is it AI (LLM)?
> Kind of goes to show how out of touch and insular the Hackernews commenter sphere can be. Almost everyone I interact with in reality loves LLMs and their touted trajectory.
And it would hold mostly true for me. This goes to show we should all be aware of our respective bubbles.
But maybe I'm just a hippie, who knows.
i do not doubt that there were people like you who saw the problems and perhaps even wanted to fix it, but I cant help but wonder where it all went wrong.
also there is no guarantee for anything that gen-z wouldn't try to pass it to the next generation either. It's a ticking time bomb, Tick tock.
As I sometimes have to remind my own gen-z child who now unironically is blaming Millennials for the current situation. The Boomers still hold almost all of the reins of power. I want to note, in 1997 the President was born in 1946 (Bill Clinton), in 2007 the President was born in 1946 (George W. Bush), in 2017 the President was born in 1946 (Donald Trump), and in 2027 the President will have been born in 1946 (Donald Trump). I am 40, at no point in my entire life has anyone in my generation held any meaningful political or economic power in this country.
I point this out, because I agree with you, but I also want to point out that a big part of this problem is that Gen-X and Millennials basically never had a chance to impose their generational spirits on the world, they've been completely overshadowed by Boomers their entire lives. Gen-Z is now entering the workforce in a world controlled by a 3 generations back, rather than by the prior generation, and so that problematic attitude of selfishness that Boomers brought to every aspect of life persists because they're still in power.
I'm right there with you on breaking the cycle, but that starts with gaining the power to have a choice.
I used to attribute it to the individualism ethos and whatnot, but I no longer think that is a reasonable take in a sense that it is not the whole story. There is a steady flow of push to separate individuals from one another. For example, it is not unusual for parent to offer a sentiment along the lines of 'you are out at 18'. And this is just one tiny example. The funny thing, there may be a merit to letting a bird fly out, but we are talking about concerted efforts to push birds out while outside is set up to be as anti-bird as possible. Not exactly a recipe for success..
If anything, I think this sentiment has decreased over the years. Partially as a result of economic challenges for young people and partially as a result of immigration from cultures where living with your parents as an adult is normal.
But I do agree with your wider point about individuals being separated from one another. I think it has to do mostly with technological changes and an economy which causes people to uproot their lives and move across the country for work.
It confusing to me how people complain about jobs - there is no guarantee that any job will be there forever, there is no guarantee that current social and economic model will be there forever, things always change, you have to adapt, there is no other way.
Do you really think a 20 years old that is afraid of not finding a good job today cares about potential benefits 10 or 20 years from now ?
Someone who is afraid won't care about anything. The question is why are they afraid? Finding "good job" was never a guaranteed thing, its always better to prepare for the worst case, like having a basic job or no job at all.
It's like Steve Forbes cluelessly joking that rise of Private Equity will make it easier for the unemployed to buy another racehorse. WTF?
At this point I don't think its a concern, I think its going to happen sooner or later.
1st world countries have a bunch of support programs for the unemployed/homeless, so its not the end of the world. 3rd world countries are more or less used to live off the land, I guess village lifestyle will make a comeback.
Once enough jobs are lost then social and economic structures will change. I don't know how exactly, so I'm just working on my skills, maybe some of them will be useful.
I do not see how is that supposed to be a vision that would help them. Why would you learn when you cant get a job, cant do research and are not worthy of doing analysis? In this vision, all of that will be like playing piano nowadays - nice wholesome but useless hobby.
I dont think the future has to happen that way necessarily, but I also do not see anyone trying to sell happy ai future for the average person. Schmidt was not selling them a happy future vision either. He was trying to convince them to accept the ugly one.
We see hobby as an inferior thing because there is a "real" job to do that earns us money. Once its gone - you have to find what to do with all that time, and then hobby becomes a real thing.
We will have all the time to spend on what we like, simply because there is nothing else to do. Assuming the basic things will be covered by UBI or something like that.
Point is: Just say it. If you think the parent is in a bubble, just express the opinion. You don't even have to mount an argument or present evidence, but there's really no value in calling somebody's opinion "weird" just because, essentially, "anybody could be wrong".
For example, is that true of your experience?
In general HN has been enamored by AI, with the sheen falling off only in the past quarter. This has matched with most people on HN being far more tech aware than the average user.
The issues with GenAI have also been couched to match observed reality.
——-
The point being, - You can have your experience, and you can talk about it to build a better understanding of reality.
I could not agree more. Each time I do a google search, I feel like I've stepped into a severe reality distortion field. The results are simply WORTHLESS. It's not just that the AI summary at the top answers the wrong question, but the sequence of hits thereafter wander off into the weeds almost immediately. I routinely have to constrain the search in multiple ways (time bounds, specific word rejection, etc) just to get one or two relevant hits.
Frankly, I think I'm going to have to MOVE AWAY FROM GOOGLE to a subscription-based search service just to get any useful search results again.
I would absolutely do this, but the only subscription search service i know about is Kagi, which is a bit too AI-forward for my taste. I wish there was a way i could subscribe to "google but 2007 google but with updated results"
If your mother is at all like my mother, she isn't burning through nearly as many tokens as developers who are utilizing AI effectively.
Datacenters aren't being built for the handful of people using a hundred or two tokens a month but the fields where each user is utilizing 10k+
I don't think this takes codex into account, but the 'What they’re using it for' section shows there's definitely a huge demand outside the use case of programming: https://openai.com/index/how-people-are-using-chatgpt/
That will never generate the revenue to justify the amount of investment being directed at AI.
In other words, we always do whatever is easiest, and rarely are willing to sacrifice our way of life to make real change. One person can never make a difference when fighting against people's desire to 'take it easy'.
Humans will always compete, there's never any rest. AI is never going away. The crowd is booing but they will never act.
Circus and Bread has become Casino and Colleseum. The competition never stops.
How hard should we 'try', how much time should a person spend working, learning, versus living?
The only way to act is to not produce or consume (to the best of your ability) any slop, and be loud about it. We are being absolutely overrun with low-quality art, prose, and software, and making the production of such unprofitable (and even unfashionable) is the only reasonable action you can take.
Anyone that thinks an LLM won't be up to spewing endless Harlequin Romance level prose is in a state of denial. And the cost of tokens continues to drop. This either means the current generation of content gets cheaper or better content becomes affordable through chain of thought token burning. I don't see a problem with that. The problem IMO is pushing a narrative that AI exists primarily to displace humans and the pushback is finally loud enough that it's getting blasted back into the faces of the billionaires. I see that as a good thing. May their endless hedonistic orgy at everyone else's expensive finally become a living nightmare of inadequacy on the hamster wheel of despair
Roles are necessary because we simply don't have time to be experts in everything.
AI changes the way we contribute.
You're right, we all don't have time to be experts in everything. But that doesn't mean experts aren't valuable, or that experts shouldn't exist.
And also, that generation got quite a few students who did sacrificed their future in protests just a few years ago. The crackdown was very real and is still ongoing.
Awareness of issues only gets you so far. But it factors into daily decisions. And when it's all too much to bear, we just push it out of mind and continue with our little sphere of influence.
Society is built up this way: everyone has their own little sphere of influence.
Money and power have much larger spheres.
So you either protest enough to cope and move on, or you get angry enough to change.
Again, I have no answers, just observation. I'm fine with AI, despite realizing our economy is eating itself. You slowly begin to realize all we ever do is eat each other, or other things.
From that point of view, your stance seems more like a theory/ideology you project on the world rather then an observation.
In my non-IT life:
1. Vast majority of people have limited awareness and even less care about AI. In fact, they cheerfully consume AI generated Facebook, tiktok and YouTube videos, let alone articles, websites, reviews and emails - my electrician, factory and plumbing male friends like nothing better than to watch random 25 second reels of scantily clad AI women after a hard day work. Other people are enjoying non-existent huskies howling and kittens mewowing, listen to AI muzak on spotify, are amazed by non-existent weird creatures, etc. They are peripherally aware thay chatgpt can make you a nicer email or tell you about something but honestly cannot be bothered much. And then there's the faction that enjoys consuming manufactured outrage. They fall for AI emails and scams and generally blissfully consume massive amounts of ai daily without being aware of it.
2. There are young passionate anti AI zealots who are not in IT. Their passionate cries all too frequently fall on death ears because they have no actual fundamental thorough correct understanding of what GenAI / LLM is, its failure modes, actual consumption, or socio-political risk. At best, they post under every AI video "won't somebody think of the water!". Which, fair enough.
3. It's really only the technically aware folks that I find have any real sense of understanding or concern about AI dangers (as well as being the ones using / championing it the most). It can even be both in same person - as a parent I'm extremely concerned what will employment and political future be for my kids - so I took a part time role as AI focal for my team to better understand and perhaps shape / guide it).
(Yes, I'm quite aware of the risk this is all a "only those who share exact same concerns I do are legit " perspective. I welcome counter arguments :).
The numbers are not reliable.
The thesis under discussion is "most people hate AI", not "most people will pay for AI". People who hate AI won't sign up to use the tools if they're free or paid QED AI service signups regardless of paid status are useful datapoints for "how many people don't hate AI".
Don't use distilled little RTX models on your frankensteined home PC like a 0.00001%er who misses the ergonomics Claude Code solves. That's a "Year of Linux on Desktop 2010" grade failure waiting to happen.
Rent cloud instances and spin up thick model weights and contribute to the open source infrastructure for making this easy for everyone to use.
The hyperscalers should be eaten by cheap, competent, cloud-based open source.
Be the change you want to see.
??? - My comment doesn't even look like an LLM wrote it.
> It’s against the guidelines.
To be clear:
I wRoTe
- E V E R Y - w o r d -
by [picture ASCII art of "human hand" here]⠀
Do not accuse me of using an LLM as a substitute for thinking.
I do not use LLMs to write any of my Hacker News comments, and I never have.
I have used LLMs to help me search for information, but I have never once in my life posted the outputs of an LLM into a post verbatim as my own. That's laziness.
I'm not dismissing LLMs here. They produce better writing than a lot of humans. They are fantastic tools for constructing media, for getting work done, and for furthering your own capabilities.
But I curate my thoughts and craft my arguments. That sort of wanton dismissal of my comments is worse than using an LLM as a substitute for thinking. That's real "human slop".
I'd prefer if we had a more open version of all of this. That's where open source will matter.
This is what bugs people.
The reason for all the LLM spend & forced adoption is to make LLMs a critical part of everyone's processes while it's cheap/free, and then crank up the price once it's too late to easily back out. Just like I will jack up the price on my grocery store once all the fools at competing stores who are charging their customers money go out of business, and I'm the only one left in the area, leaving everyone (except for me!) worse off than where they started.
It's a scam, and it seems to be working.
Same here, but I honestly think that's largely due to the threat is poses to their (and my) profession.
The Western media is stoking these fears.
Asia is embracing AI. Japan is using it in anime. India is going wild with large and small business usage. All of my friends in India report how popular it is, and how they're using it to get work done. I don't even have to mention China.
I am sick of how our media is brainwashing people to hate one of the most important technological developments in our lifetime.
They tried doing this during the internet era too. When I was a kid, every newspaper was going on about how awful the internet was. Didn't stop me from jumping on IRC and learning to program.
Every single time disruption happens, there's a cacophony of ire and disdain. Musicians that hated "electronic" music. Digital photography. This one just happens to be broader and even more impacting, so you're hearing it everywhere.
These tools are immensely useful. They can empower individuals with superpowers, like wearing an exoskeleton.
The conversation is never about monopolization or consolidation of power, which is how this should be articulated. Instead, it's always "AI bad" or "think of the water". That is 10000% the wrong framing.
That was not the original narrative by any company. I was here ten years ago when WaveNet and DeepDream were first published.
The media started shitting on this stuff immediately. DALL-E and Midjourney were not describing themselves as artist destroyers. GPT-3 was not hailed as a white collar job killer. Yet the news media hounded the industry relentlessly.
Labs started co-opting this narrative from the news media to create FOMO for investors and possible customers.
I work in AI. I had a coworker quit a job four years ago because his sister had a long talk with him that "AI destroyed art", which is something she learned from YouTube. Four years ago.
No AI CEO was saying any of this stuff back then. It was all seeded by the news media and certain YouTubers.
I can remember when John Oliver was joking around with Midjourney and DeepDream on his show and laughing about how fun and cool it was. He can't do that now because he'd be crucified for it.
I can go back and do an archeological dig if you like.
Sam Altman was talking about how we neeeed UBI because AI was going to take everyone’s job very early in the development of LLMs. I have no idea why you don’t remember that, but it’s in writing everywhere.
The "it's stealing" arguments have quieted down. Especially since there are weights trained on fully licensed materials by Adobe and others.
Now that code models can do it, it's a moot point. Data can be found anywhere, and models are pretty good at generalizing out of domain, not unlike human brains.
Engineers finding out these models are good is drawing a lot of the same "slop" / "clanker" arguments that non-artists have been using. These arguments are much less interesting than arguments about copyright and control.
What happened is that anyone who makes commercial art, like anyone who (used to) write software for a living, is now forced to use AI to survive, or else switch careers.
I come from software dev, so sure it irritates me that its cutting my market ability down, but think calmly about the opposite side. Actually I think software is safer in some ways, software isn't just WYSWYG, it needs good thinking and engineering to make things work safely and consistently. But art? That's the oldest impulse and for many branches of art WYSWYG.
"Eat meat, said the butcher"
That's a shame.
I assume the reason for the "deep distain" is rooted in fear of change, fear that LLM will make it harder to have a successful career.
That's a pretty negative mindset to have as a college grad just entering the workforce.
I'm not an AI fan boy, but we can't cover our eyes and cover our ears and pretend the world isn't changing.
notably, I haven’t seen any ACTUAL technical improvements from LLMs, just a massive amount of slop. The ‘improvements’ are in volume of slop, not quality.
If AI becomes common place at work (I’d argue it already has), it clearly will hurt you if you boycott it out of fear or anger that the tech exists.
It’s pretty simple
Why not? Most people do. There are still about 10,000 working blacksmiths in America.
Unironically I think we need more lifestyle and technological diversity in the world. End the monopolies that make running your own X harder. More Amish adjacent microcommunities and less monoculture. Federalism for tech / lifestyle creep.
The only reason these things seem inevitable is because our shared delusions make it so. We would have more power if we weren’t all so afraid to exercise it.
It's strange that your comment puts "fear of change" right there next to one of the actual concrete reasons. Usually the people disparaging negative attitudes about AI say "fear of change" to avoid talking about the obvious reasons.
I don't think people are pretending the world isn't changing. I think people are right to be deeply skeptical about the direction we're headed in. More powerful tech companies dug in deeper into our lives, more government surveillance, harder times for small companies and more influence from mega-corps.
Lying, cheating and game-rigging at industrial scale powered by machine intelligence. He's lucky all he got were boos.
You imply that the change is inevitable. AI isn't inevitable.
It requires governments to allow the construction of datacentres and for companies to be able to spend vast amounts of money they don't have for the hope of future return, which will inevitably result in a too-big-to-fail cascade which gets money dragged out of the middle/lower class via slogans like "we're all in this together".
None of this is required. The idea that humanity is stuck on this future pathway is frankly bunk.
However, this is not the issue. The issue is that the tech is being hijacked by corps and already on the verge of being annoying. I my corner of the world, I get high level company message of 'use AI' ( which include goals that say so ), but also -- already -- ridiculous sets of limits on how much I an use it ( our context recently got nearly zeroed ; we no longer can upload unsanctioned files ). And if you want something beyond email summarization machine, you need special approvals. This thing is already being neutered at multiple levels and it barely even started to blossom.
Add to this clear indicators that our dictators have no intention of being benevolent and it is not exactly a surprise why younger generations are not exactly thrilled. I like this tech and I hate the retardation I am subjected to daily resulting directly from its outputs.
What you answer on a survey is meaningless. Look at their actions.
And no they're not being pressured to use LLMs, standards or expectations have not gone up dramatically.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/24/09/stu...
It is possible to be a user of LLMs and to despise them.
The obvious difference between LLM adoption and social media, if you think about it for longer than 10 seconds, is that there is social pressure to use social media. Your friends are organizing and bonding on social media. None of this exists with LLMs. There is no social pressure to have an AI girlfriend, quite the opposite.
Also I preempted the "if all your peers were using these tools..." none of this applies to students. In fact i'm sure most teacher would prefer not getting AI slop. Standards have not increased.
Please read the entire comment next time before replying
People can hate on AI e.g. because they see it as a symbol of inequality and billionaires deciding important things over our heads and also actively use it.
teens are not using llm for fun.
> had used generative AI at some point
also this is bit of a ridiculous stat to claim "highest user"
I don’t like driving in traffic yet I do it pretty much every day. Why don’t I simply not drive?