pesus

You have multiple comments calling anyone opposed to AI in any way an "educated elite". If you don't accept that framework, stop using it.

None of this changes the fact that average people aren't elites, no matter how much you may try to spin it that way.

And ironically, your comment and views are themselves extremely simplistic. New technology is not inherently progress. Being opposed to specific applications or misuse or consequences of a type of technology is not the same as being broadly anti-technology. A "populist narrative" is an incredibly vague oversimplification, and an ironic thing to complain about in a comment that only serves to spread the pro-elite and anti-human narrative the AI corporations are currently pushing.

OpenAI isn't a convincing source. Of course they're going to blame everything on someone else. They don't want to acknowledge the very real hate for AI that people have. It's also extremely likely that they themselves are involved in the very same thing but to push AI instead.

The current far right government/movement (aka conservatives) is far more in favor of AI than people opposed to them. You seem to be labeling just about everything as the opposite of what it actually is. Are you invested in or working at an AI company?

> AI benefits everyone while also benefitting the billionaires - even disproportionately.

Source?

Also, you seem to be (probably intentionally) mixing up who's an elite and who's not. The people controlling and profiting from AI companies and their ilk are elites. The average person who's livelihood is at risk is not an elite, not matter how much you may try to spin it.

Source?

And I suppose that depends on whether I die first from not having access to healthcare after AI takes my job.

> If you are trying to take on the hyperscalers why not push for UBI vs trying to stop the buildout? Is the former really that much more difficult than the latter?

I'm really not trying to be rude, but have you followed US politics or history at all? Is this a serious question? Yes, it is incomprehensibly harder to fundamentally change the fabric and structure of society, especially in a way that involves giving "free" money to people, than it is to prevent something from being built.

You're right, but that doesn't mean opinions will evolve towards viewing the technology more positively. With AI, it's increasingly the opposite.

We have a higher chance of the world ending than getting UBI in America. This is a country that can't even get basic universal healthcare going. Even if we did somehow get UBI, with who's controlling the country, there's almost no chance it wouldn't be abused to control people.

Losing your job means losing your livelihood and often your life for the vast majority of people.

That's not even getting into any loss of purpose or identity it might cause people. For better or for worse, working and jobs are a major part of the social fabric of society, and it would take a non-insignificant amount of time for that to change. Trying to abruptly shift that would not go well.

It's funny seeing this kind of comment get made over and over. I don't think those regurgitating this line realize that getting "left behind" (whatever that even actually means) is appealing when the direction the future is heading is very unappealing.

If the only consequence is that they're not rewarded, then it seems like it's very fair to categorize it as "no consequences".

Even if you categorize missing out on some bonus or something as a consequence, it pales in comparison to the damage they've done and the lives they've severely disrupted and possibly irreparably damaged by firing people on a whim. (And I consider firing people because you fell for the AI hype / obvious marketing to be a whim)

> People seem to struggle to wrap their head around the fact that privacy laws don't prevent people from recording them in public.

Maybe this needs to be restricted in some capacity, then.

I agree with your point in general, but doesn't that disclaimer apply to any kind of supplement? As far as I know that sort of thing has been allowed for quite some time. For whatever reason the FDA allows for an almost completely unregulated vitamin/supplement industry.

What a dream. If we could also somehow get rid of social media at the same time (or at least algorithmic recommendations and other predatory practices), the world would be a significantly better place.

Or books.

It also depends on the person and the model of Pros, strangely enough. The first generation stayed in my ears perfectly, but the second generation does not.

My opinions get downvoted all the time. I've seen my own comments fluctuate in real time. Such is the world of online discussion boards.

> You, yourself, are ganging up on commenter and painting people with broad strokes.

No need to complain about "not being allowed to have a dissenting opinion" and then complain about people disagreeing with you. That's not what "ganging up" means. If we're concerned about the HN guidelines, maybe also avoid complaining about downvotes.

People disagreeing with you and discussing something does not mean dissenting opinions aren't allowed. If anything, it proves the opposite.

The AI companies are run by billionaires and now trillionaires that publicly brag about getting rid of artists and creating a permanent underclass. The only people actually profiting off of this are either stakeholders in those companies and/or command extremely high compensation from those companies. Those are the elite and privileged, not the average person who is against this.

It allows them to dismiss anyone who doesn't buy into what they're selling without any actual effort and maintain a superiority complex at the same time. A common tactic these days for all sorts of things - after all, they're logical and rational, and not like those silly normies who are emotional and incapable of being "rational" like them.

> Statements like this are just totally detached from reality.

Funny, I could say the same about this condescending statement. Maybe it depends on who you interact with. I associate with almost no tech people outside of work, and am probably a bit on the younger side compared to most people on HN.

> and ignore the stuff you can't be bothered with

If this was actually possible, there would be far less backlash to AI. As it stands, it's being forced into every aspect of our lives without consent. Even if you avoid technology as much as possible (which is a good thing), it's still affecting every aspect of society. Even if you avoid technology altogether, you still live in a society full of people who can't or don't, and you can't escape the consequences of it - such as if the CEOs get their way and eliminate human employment like they have constantly threatened and fantasized about.

> There is no reason for not liking something to breed this much hate and division.

Other than the fact that the tool itself is being used to spread actual hate and division, and is currently destroying the fabric of society.

Dismissive and condescending comments like this also only serve to further push people away from AI. Writing it off as someone just not liking something new does not make the actual issues go away, nor does it make people's anger go away. If you earnestly believe that's all it is, I think you're in for quite a shock in the future.

> it became fashionable to hate on it during the financial crisis of 2007.

Is it because it's "fashionable", or is it because million of people started directly feeling the adverse effects of it and saw the perpetrators get off scot-free?

That's the problem with conflating LLMs and image/video generation - they're all lumped into the same bucket, even when they shouldn't.

I mean the idea of AI (or at least what these companies are calling AI) is fundamentally tainted in the public's eye. People aren't suddenly going to start loving it after everything that's happened in the past ~5 years or so, even if it was somehow restarted.

> Do you work in the tech industry?

Yes, I do. Do you? Is there a point to this condescension?

Good write up, and I think it accurately sums up many people's feelings about AI.

One thing I would disagree with is the idea of AI getting a do over. Even if they somehow managed to do that, the idea of AI is fundamentally tainted for whole generations of people, and its reputation only gets worse every day. There's no coming back from that any time soon.

I think you're underestimating how much laundry there is for families. But in general, it's one of the tedious things that people want automation to handle. They may not buy something just for folding laundry, but if it can do other household chores I think it could be a big success. That's a ways off in the future, though.

This comment is a fantastic example of AI-proponents' hubris, delusion, and fundamental lack of understanding of humanity these days. Great work.

I strongly disagree. Tedious yet necessary and ultimately unending tasks are exactly what the average person wants from automation.

> By trying! How else is it going to happen? Are we going to deny the immense potential?

Trying what, though? What is it? Immense potential for what? So far this entire comment doesn't actually say what you think we should do in any capacity. It doesn't really say anything at all.