We can't control AI

[#UnleashThePortal]

The great filter always is!

We ourselves are probably just a couple of years away from ai sound and video that is truly indistinguishable from real life. If we think misinformation is bad now, oh boy.

[jesmu84]

Why isn't there regulation demanding everything AI "created" have a logo/watermark/notation?

[jesmu84]

Why is AI permitted to learn (steal) from everything even if trademarked?

[Shaka Shart]

Why is AI permitted to learn (steal) from everything even if trademarked?

Because by the time they pass any half toothed legislation about it that gets past their lobbying arms, it'll already have been well worth the amount they've trained on it

[pbiflyer]

OK, well that was pretty depressing for a Friday afternoon. 

Have you considered turning to any of the AI self-help psychological tools to cure your depression?

[MU82]

"I think that we might have AI smarter than any single human, at anything, as soon as next year. ... And then probably within five years — like, say, 2030 — probably AI is smarter than the sum of all humans." - Elon Musk

[The Sultan]

"I think that we might have AI smarter than any single human, at anything, as soon as next year. ... And then probably within five years — like, say, 2030 — probably AI is smarter than the sum of all humans." - Elon Musk

And if there is one person who is usually spot on with his predictions, it's this guy.

[Badgerhater]

The NCAA couldn't control Al either.

[jesmu84]

https://youtu.be/Nq-Faw_ENEQ?si=k_qnQzp4PL43ugmr

Lol

[Uncle Rico]

https://youtu.be/Nq-Faw_ENEQ?si=k_qnQzp4PL43ugmr

Lol

The rich get richer at the cost of American exceptionalism.  It's remarkable the damage done to this country in 9 months in the name of the oligarchs.

[jesmu84]

https://youtu.be/Q0TpWitfxPk?si=3h1xAUN9F6VTXbsw

Bubble?

[jficke13]

stop paying attention to the intellectual progeny of Yudkowski, he and all of his ilk are lunatics that do not deserve the time of day let alone your respect. For real, a group of people who use as their formative texts a 300,000 word Harry Potter fanfic (that sucks) and a Harlan Ellison short story ("I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream," which admittedly whips) are not people we should assume are sophisticated and will proven right.

For "AI" to do the existential horror stuff it needs to be a scifi technology. It is not. There is no plausibly probable path for it to become what they are saying it will be. In fact, I think by far the most likely scenario is that the current gen "AI"/LLM based ecosystem is headed for collapse because it has no value proposition* and cannot possibly be profitable under any reckoning.

*"AI" as it currently exists has two use cases. The first is for financialization. E.g. "My company is in "AI" <spooky hands>, therefore I-Banks give me money" (this is depressingly viable). The second is for fraud and crime in general (this is also depressingly viable).

LLM/Machine Learning will survive but in niche applications. There is no general-ubiquity, public-facing use for them as they exist and are currently marketed. One clue? When Steve Jobs stood on a stage and held up an iphone, Apple didn't need to force everyone on earth to buy a smartphone. Everyone saw it as useful and bought one. Google/Microsoft/OpenAI are *forcing* "AI" bull-sh into every product to justify its existence over the objection of almost everyone who uses their products. It's... kinda different.

[Hards Alumni]

YES

[MU82]

stop paying attention to the intellectual progeny of Yudkowski, he and all of his ilk are lunatics that do not deserve the time of day let alone your respect. For real, a group of people who use as their formative texts a 300,000 word Harry Potter fanfic (that sucks) and a Harlan Ellison short story ("I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream," which admittedly whips) are not people we should assume are sophisticated and will proven right.

For "AI" to do the existential horror stuff it needs to be a scifi technology. It is not. There is no plausibly probable path for it to become what they are saying it will be. In fact, I think by far the most likely scenario is that the current gen "AI"/LLM based ecosystem is headed for collapse because it has no value proposition* and cannot possibly be profitable under any reckoning.

*"AI" as it currently exists has two use cases. The first is for financialization. E.g. "My company is in "AI" <spooky hands>, therefore I-Banks give me money" (this is depressingly viable). The second is for fraud and crime in general (this is also depressingly viable).

LLM/Machine Learning will survive but in niche applications. There is no general-ubiquity, public-facing use for them as they exist and are currently marketed. One clue? When Steve Jobs stood on a stage and held up an iphone, Apple didn't need to force everyone on earth to buy a smartphone. Everyone saw it as useful and bought one. Google/Microsoft/OpenAI are *forcing* "AI" bull-sh into every product to justify its existence over the objection of almost everyone who uses their products. It's... kinda different.

I'd believe you, but it sounds like AI already has infiltrated your brain.

[jesmu84]

https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/s/S1bVo2k7UF

[jesmu84]

https://youtu.be/55Z4cg5Fyu4?si=7BlEN5GjCQckOj5g

Seems scammy

[Uncle Rico]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/tesla-grok-mom-9.6956930

[MU82]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/tesla-grok-mom-9.6956930

Elon has kinks.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

"AI-related spending now contributes more to the nation's GDP growth than all consumer spending combined, and by another calculation, those AI expenditures accounted for 92 percent of GDP growth during the first half of 2025."

[MUEng92]

It's weird that when I ask AI about a topic I'm unfamiliar with, I never have to correct it.  But, when I ask it about topics I am familiar with, I often have to correct it. 

Things that make you go hmmm

[MU82]

WSJ: AI Isn't Lightening Workloads. It's Making Them More Intense

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-isnt-lightening-workloads-its-making-them-more-intense-e417dd2c?

One of the great hopes for artificial intelligence—at least, among workers—is that it will ease workloads, freeing people up for more high-level, creative pursuits. So far, the opposite is happening, new data show.

In fact, AI is increasing the speed, density and complexity of work rather than reducing it, according to an analysis of 164,000 workers' digital work activity. The data, from workforce analytics and productivity-tracking software company ActivTrak, covers more than 443 million hours of work across 1,111 employers, making it one of the biggest studies of AI's effects on work habits to date.   

Examining AI users' digital activity 180 days before and after they began using such tools on the job, ActivTrak found AI intensified activity across nearly every category: The time they spent on email, messaging and chat apps more than doubled, while their use of business-management tools, such as human-resources or accounting software, rose 94%.

Meanwhile, the amount of time AI users devoted to focused, uninterrupted work—the kind of concentration often required for figuring out complex problems, writing formulas, creating and strategizing—fell 9%, compared with nearly no change for nonusers.

"It's not that AI doesn't create efficiency," said Gabriela Mauch, ActivTrak's chief customer officer and head of its productivity lab. "It's that the capacity it frees up immediately gets repurposed into doing other work, and that's where the creep is likely to happen."