this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024

50 points (91.7% liked)

Fuck AI

1507 readers

229 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 9 months ago

MODERATORS

BigMikeInAustin

CriticalMedicine

WonderfulWanderer

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Sterile_Technique

[email protected]

[email protected]

50

APpaREnTLy THiS iS hoW yoU JaIlBreAk AI (www.404media.co)

submitted 15 hours ago by [email protected] to c/fuck_ai

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 1 points 34 minutes ago* (last edited 32 minutes ago)

If you have to talk to an AI and it won't give you a person, try making the insane "pay it forward" order from I Think You Should Leave.

It works at Taco Bell's drive-thru every time.

[+] 13esq -26 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (3 children)

Women workers in Britain attacked the Spinning Jenny because it speeded up the spinning process, and consequently, reduced labour demand. This caused a valid fear of unemployment among women working in the woollen industry. Till date, they had survived on hand spinning, but this was placed in peril by the new machine.

Who wants to go back to spinning wool by hand now?

[–] Mirshe 13 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Uhhh, the actual fear wasn't unemployment, it was taking skill and care out of the equation. A lot of the women (and men) that attacked the emerging British textile factories were worried LESS about losing their own livelihoods to industry than they were about the absolutely brutal conditions people were placed under in these factories. Their counterargument was large-scale shops doing hand spinning or machine-aided spinning LED BY THOSE WOMEN instead of some posh asshole who hasn't ever spun wool - still producing things slower, but with theoretically zero children getting mangled by a wool carder.

The Luddites (of whom the spinning jenny protests were a part) didn't fear progress because it might make them obsolete, they argued that rapacious pursuit of more efficient methods by people who didn't understand that industry, who hadn't worked in that industry, was going to make those industries worse, and also get people harmed in some cases.

They were right, by the way.

[–] warbond 9 points 7 hours ago

The whole Luddite thing is definitely the narrative of the ruling class. That group had a bunch of great reasons for not wanting industrialization, including attempting to maintain the original "cottage industry."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago

rapacious pursuit of more efficient methods by people who didn't understand that industry, who hadn't worked in that industry, was going to make those industries worse, and also get people harmed in some cases.

The OG MBA’s

[–] 13esq -2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Just like the Spinning Jenny back then, AI is as bad as it's ever going to be today. It's only going to get better and jobs will be made redundant, I'll put my money on that. It's a real fear that many people have, whether they'll admit it or not.

You can absolutely argue that the human touch is irreplaceable and just as there is a niche market for hand spun cotton now, I'm sure that there will be cases where humans are still employed for jobs that could arguably be filled by AI in the future.

How many of the clothes that you own use hand spun threads? I'll bet on zero.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 36 minutes ago

I am amused that of all innovations available, you are going 250 years back to a very basic machine. Next you'll be comparing LLMs to the concept of sand casting copper ax blade being better than knapping a rock into a hamd ax.

Not something like how Email, SMS and Instant messaging have almost completely replaced fax and telephone calls.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 hours ago

IMO people are less likely to reject AI in some use cases, taking over medial tasks (e.g. email drafting, writing cover letters)

BUT it is the sneaky and persistent way in which many "AI assistants" are forced on users with no option to opt out. We all know it's just to open out huge data gathering services and increase revenue, not for our benefit.

[–] riodoro1 17 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

What the fuck even is this comparison?

Is generative AI anywhere replacing human manual labor? No, we have robots for that. They are programmed. They’ve been around for a long time.

[–] 13esq 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Just wait.

Data entry clerks, receptionists, office assistants, customer support representatives, document reviewers, cashiers, sales associates, inventory managers, telemarketers, market researchers, assembly line workers, quality control inspectors, warehouse pickers and packers, delivery drivers, forklift operators, taxi and rideshare drivers, truck drivers, train operators, bank tellers, loan officers, tax preparers, bookkeepers, financial analysts, content writers, video editors, graphic designers, translators, transcribers, social media managers, radiologists, pathologists, medical coders, pharmacy technicians, tutors, language teachers, test proctors, curriculum developers, paralegals, legal researchers, contract analysts, compliance officers, hotel receptionists, travel agents, restaurant servers, chefs, crop harvesters, livestock monitors, farm equipment operators, security guards, fraud analysts, alarm system monitors, technical support analysts, market forecasters, personal assistants, event planners, librarians.

All at risk.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 48 minutes ago

Sorry, but warehouse pickers and packers are not, and will never be at risk from LLMs.

Because they're already obsolete from standard 30 year old robotics.

Also anything requiring precision, suited and accuracy isnt ever going to be viable for LLMs to replace. The technology isn't designed for that and is not capable of meeting a human. E.G. for general automaton: US automotive giants Ford and GM tried to go fully automated for production in the 1980s and 1990s, but reverted some of the automation when it turned out that their senior machinists were better and faster than the robots, saving the companies more than a million dollars per person per year.