US experts who work in artificial intelligence fields seem to have a much rosier outlook on AI than the rest of us.

In a survey comparing views of a nationally representative sample (5,410) of the general public to a sample of 1,013 AI experts, the Pew Research Center found that “experts are far more positive and enthusiastic about AI than the public” and “far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years” (56 percent vs. 17 percent). And perhaps most glaringly, 76 percent of experts believe these technologies will benefit them personally rather than harm them (15 percent).

The public does not share this confidence. Only about 11 percent of the public says that “they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life.” They’re much more likely (51 percent) to say they’re more concerned than excited, whereas only 15 percent of experts shared that pessimism. Unlike the majority of experts, just 24 percent of the public thinks AI will be good for them, whereas nearly half the public anticipates they will be personally harmed by AI.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    If it was marketed and used for what it’s actually good at this wouldn’t be an issue. We shouldn’t be using it to replace artists, writers, musicians, teachers, programmers, and actors. It should be used as a tool to make those people’s jobs easier and achieve better results. I understand its uses and that it’s not a useless technology. The problem is that capitalism and greedy CEOs are ruining the technology by trying to replace everyone but themselves so they can maximize profits.

    • faltryka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      The natural outcome of making jobs easier in a profit driven business model is to either add more work or reduce the number of workers.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 days ago

        Yes, but when the price is low enough (honestly free in a lot of cases) for a single person to use it, it also makes people less reliant on the services of big corporations.

        For example, today’s AI can reliably make decent marketing websites, even when run by nontechnical people. Definitely in the “good enough” zone. So now small businesses don’t have to pay Webflow those crazy rates.

        And if you run the AI locally, you can also be free of paying a subscription to a big AI company.

    • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 days ago

      Mayne pedantic, but:

      Everyone seems to think CEOs are the problem. They are not. They report to and get broad instruction from the board. The board can fire the CEO. If you got rid of a CEO, the board will just hire a replacement.

      • Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        15 days ago

        And if you get rid of the board, the shareholders will appointment a new one. If you somehow get rid of all the shareholders, like-minded people will slot themselves into those positions.

        The problems are systemic, not individual.

  • pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    15 days ago

    Maybe that’s because every time a new AI feature rolls out, the product it’s improving gets substantially worse.

  • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    15 days ago

    The first thing seen at the top of WhatsApp now is an AI query bar. Who the fuck needs anything related to AI on WhatsApp?

      • alphabethunter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        Lots of people. I need it because it’s how my clients at work prefer to communicate with me, also how all my family members and friends communicate.

    • alphabethunter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      15 days ago

      Right?! It’s literally just a messenger, honestly, all I expect from it is that it’s an easy and reliable way of sending messages to my contacts. Anything else is questionable.

      • Nuxleio@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 days ago

        There are exactly 0 good reasons to use whatsapp anyways…

        • alphabethunter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          Yes, there are. You just have to live in one of the many many countries in the world where the overwhelming majority of the population uses whatsapp as their communication app. Like my country. Where not only friends and family, but also businesses and government entities use WhatsApp as their messaging app. I have at least a couple hundred reasons to use WhatsApp, including all my friends, all my family members, and all my clients at work. Do I like it? Not really. Do I have a choice? No. Just like I don’t have a choice on not using gmail, because that’s the email provider that the company I work for decided to go with.

          • Nuxleio@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            14 days ago

            SMS works fine in any country.

            And you can isolate your business requirements from your personal life.

    • sgtgig@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 days ago

      Android Messages and Facebook Messenger also pushed in AI as ‘something you can chat with’

      I’m not here to talk to your fucking chatbot I’m here to talk to my friends and family.

  • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    14 days ago

    I do as a software engineer. The fad will collapse. Software engineering hiring will increase but the pipeline of new engineers will is dry because no one wants to enter the career with companies hanging ai over everyone’s heads. Basic supply and demand says my skillset will become more valuable.

    Someone will need to clean up the ai slop. I’ve already had similar pistons where I was brought into clean up code bases that failed being outsourced.

    Ai is simply the next iteration. The problem is always the same business doesn’t know what they really want and need and have no ability to assess what has been delivered.

  • sheetzoos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    14 days ago

    New technologies are not the issue. The problem is billionaires will fuck it up because they can’t control their insatiable fucking greed.

    • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      exactly. we could very well work less hours with the same pay. we wouldnt be as depressed and angry as we are right now.

      we just have to overthrow, what, like 2000 people in a given country?

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    15 days ago

    Experts are working from their perspective, which involves being employed to know the details of how the AI works and the potential benefits. They are invested in it being successful as well, since they spent the time gaining that expertise. I would guess a number of them work in fields that are not easily visible to the public, and use AI systems in ways the public never will because they are focused on things like pattern recognition on virii or idendifying locations to excavate for archeology that always end with a human verifying the results. They use AI as a tool and see the indirect benefits.

    The general public’s experience is being told AI is a magic box that will be smarter than the average person, has made some flashy images and sounds more like a person than previous automated voice things. They see it spit out a bunch of incorrect or incoherent answers, because they are using it the way it was promoted, as actually intelligent. They also see this unreliable tech being jammed into things that worked previously, and the negative outcome of the hype not meeting the promises. They reject it because how it is being pushed onto the public is not meeting their expectations based on advertising.

    That is before the public is being told that AI will drive people out of their jobs, which is doubly insulting when it does a shitty job of replacing people. It is a tool, not a replacement.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    14 days ago

    Its just going to help industry provide inferior services and make more profit. Like AI doctors.

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    15 days ago

    AI is mainly a tool for the powerful to oppress the lesser blessed. I mean cutting actual professionals out of the process to let CEOs wildest dreams go unchecked has devastating consequences already if rumors are to believed that some kids using ChatGPT cooked up those massive tariffs that have already erased trillions.

    • applemao@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      Yet my libertarian centrist friend INSISTS that AI is great for humanity. I keep telling him the billionaires don’t give a fuck about you and he keeps licking boots. How many others are like this??

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      I would agree with that if the cost of the tool was prohibitively expensive for the average person, but it’s really not.

      • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        It‘s too expensive for society already as it has stolen work from millions to even be trained with millions more to come. We literally cannot afford to work for free when the rich already suck up all that productivity increase we‘ve gained over the last century.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          I disagree. While intellectual property legally exists, ethically there’s no reason to be protective of it.

          Information should be a shared resource for everyone, and all these open weights models are a good example of that in action.

          • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            14 days ago

            Prepare to die on that hill I guess because this couldn‘t be further of what is happening right now. Copyright exists but only for top oligarchs.

  • TylerBourbon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    14 days ago

    I dont believe AI will ever be more than essentially a parlar trick that fools you into thinking it’s intelligent when it’s really just a more advanced tool like excel compared to pen and paper or an abacus.

    The real threat will be people who fool themselves into thinking it’s more than that and that it’s word is law, like a diety. Or worse, the people that do understand that but like various religious and political leaders that used religion to manipulate people, the new AI Pope’s will try and do the same manipulation but with AI.

  • Naevermix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    They’re right. What happens to the workers when they’re no longer required? The horses faced a similar issue at the advent of the combustion engine. The solution? Considerably fewer horses.