The Force-Feeding of AI on an Unwilling Public

[t2van]

Thoughts:

The Force-Feeding of AI on an Unwilling Public

This isn't innovation, it's tyranny

www.honest-broker.com

Before proceeding let me ask a simple question: Has there ever been a major innovation that helped society, but only 8% of the public would pay for it?

That’s never happened before in human history. Everybody wanted electricity in their homes. Everybody wanted a radio. Everybody wanted a phone. Everybody wanted a refrigerator. Everybody wanted a TV set. Everybody wanted the Internet.

They wanted it. They paid for it. They enjoyed it.

AI isn’t like that. People distrust it or even hate it—and more so with each passing month. So the purveyors must bundle it into current offerings, and force usage that way.

“That’s the blight of the AI revolution. It looks like spam. It smells like spam. It tastes like spam.”​

 

[roydan]

It's the type of rants you hear from people that think AI content started with ChatGPT and not years prior to it.

Many compare it to the industrial revolution and I think they're correct. The "replacables" are rightfully afraid, while the rest of the population benefit from it. Either by using it directly to save effort or by indirectly when prices drop because stuff require a lot less manual labor.

 

[t2van]

It's the type of rants you hear from people that think AI content started with ChatGPT and not years prior to it.

Many compare it to the industrial revolution and I think they're correct. The "replacables" are rightfully afraid, while the rest of the population benefit from it. Either by using it directly to save effort or by indirectly when prices drop because stuff require a lot less manual labor.

Yeah I read another article that is similar to what you said above.

Good points tho, this one was more about how it's being forced into products and services and then prices are increasing for "AI features" no one wants or needs.

The author goes onto to suggest it's possible because AI tools and services would run at a loss and companies would no doubt fold or go under because running costs are so high and user uptake is so low they couldn't afford to keep running it.

Which does sort of make sense really.

 

[roydan]

Yeah I read another article that is similar to what you said above.

Good points tho, this one was more about how it's being forced into products and services and then prices are increasing for "AI features" no one wants or needs.

The author goes onto to suggest it's possible because AI tools and services would run at a loss and companies would no doubt fold or go under because running costs are so high and user uptake is so low they couldn't afford to keep running it.

Which does sort of make sense really.

Yeah, but it sorts of the same argument the people make every time bus rides become more expensive as oil price changes.

Still cheaper than a horse and carriage.

 

[Zwielicht]

It's a really handy tool to have, but I feel like too many people and companies are using a tool that they don't understand, and that's where a lot of the problems are coming from.

AI is getting misrepresented in everything to the point where "AI" has just become another buzzword, like that "powered by AI deodorant" that was just formulated using AI.

I agree with the article that it feels like it's been rolled out prematurely, although I don't think there was ever going to be a right time for any of this. It's like when automobiles came out, people were struggling with the shift from horse-drawn carriages to cars. The same thing happened with the shift from DC to AC to the point where people were claiming alternating current was "dangerous".

 

[MisterF]

I think on search engines there should be the settings option to hide Ai results.