Tech CEOs want us to believe that generative AI will benefit humanity. They are kidding themselves

  • the_wise_man@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Deep learning can be and is useful today, it’s just that the useful applications are things like classifiers and computer vision models. Lots of commercial products are already using those kinds of models to great effect, some for years already.

    • exohuman@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you think of the AI firms who are saying it could help with making policy decisions, climate change, and lead people to easier lives?

      • GizmoLion@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Absolutely. Computers are great at picking out patterns across enormous troves of data. Those trends and patterns can absolutely help guide policymaking decisions the same way it can help guide medical diagnostic decisions.

        • exohuman@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The article was skeptical about this. It said that the problem with expecting it to revolutionize policy decisions isn’t that we don’t know what to do, it’s that we don’t want to do it. For example, we already know how to solve climate change and the smartest people on the planet in those fields have already told us what needed to be done. We just don’t want to make the changes necessary.

          • GizmoLion@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean… no argument there. Politicians are famous for needing to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing.
            Just in case one decides to, however, I’m all for having the most powerful tools and complete information possible.

          • manitcor@lemmy.intai.tech
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thats been the case time and again, how many disruptions from the tech bros came to industries that had been stagnant or moving at a snails pace when it came to adopting new technology (esp to lock into more expensive legacy systems).

            Most of those industries disrupted could have been secured by the players in those markets instead the allowed a disruptor to appear unchallenged.

            Remember the market is not as rational as some might think, you start filling gaps and people often won’t ask about the fallout and many of these services did have people warning against these things.

            We are for the most part, in a nation that lets you do whatever you want until the effects have hit people, this is even more a thing if you are a business. I don’t know an easy answer, in some of these cases, old gaurd needed a smack, in others a more controlled entry may have been better. As of now “controlled” is jut about the size of ones cash pile.

            Cue the ethical corporations discussion…