Replies (2)

• @verily@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-09-14 19:15

  Nobody is claiming any of the things this article is fighting against Three counterexamples: OpenAI models went rogue. The Guardian Why the Hugging Face Hack Should Make You Worry More About A.I. NY Times Hugging Face hack marks start of dangerous AI cyber era and many firms ‘don’t even know it’ CNBC I realize we are in a bit of a bubble here, but this is the framing in the wider world there were unintended negative consequences Well…

  Open ##4800667

• @fodor@lemmy.zip 2026-09-15 10:25

  Maybe you don’t read the same articles that I read, but I very much have seen people claiming the things that the article is fighting against. Here’s something you should consider. The big AI companies just released a statement saying we should be worried about AI killing everyone accidentally in the future or some such s***. But if they’re selling vaporware, and they know it, and they realize the only thing they actually created was fairly powerful LLMs, they would be desperate to cover up that fact. They would be desperate to make themselves relevant, to pretend that AI is going somewhere when it isn’t. Another way of looking at things as that author has also written is that we’re looking at definitional questions where the people selling us things are liars. If you point out that their technology hasn’t matched the promises that they made, they will counter by pointing at some advanced statistical methods. If you point out that AI drive-thrus are a failure, and that AI at Pizza Hut has destroyed hundreds of franchises to the point that they sued corporate, then they’ll respond by talking about how intelligent ChatGPT sounds. So at some point if you want to have a sensible conversation about AI, you need to start to define what you’re talking about. Or you could pretend that there is no need to define things to deflect from the issue, so that nobody reading would learn anything about the world.

  Open ##4812464