• criss_cross@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      Nah. Profits are growing, but not as fast as they used to. Need more layoffs and cut salaries. That’ll make things really efficient.

      Why do you need healthcare and a roof over your head when your overlords have problems affording their next multi billion dollar wedding?

      • thanks AV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        16 days ago

        Someone somewhere is inventing a technology that will save thirty minutes on the production of my wares and when that day comes I will tower above my competitors as I exchange my products for a fraction less than theirs. They will tremble at my more efficient process as they stand unable to compete!

      • biofaust@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 days ago

        I really understand this is a reality, especially in the US, and that this is really happening, but is there really no one, even around the world, who is taking advantage of laid-off skilled workforce?

        Are they really all going to end up as pizza riders or worse, or are there companies making a long-term investment in workforce that could prove useful for different uses in the short AND long term?

        I am quite sure that’s what Novo Nordisk is doing with their hire push here in Denmark, as long as the money lasts, but I would be surprised no one is doing it in the US itself.

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    sigh

    Dustin’ off this one, out from the fucking meme archive…

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=JnX-D4kkPOQ

    Millenials:

    Time for your third ‘once-in-a-life-time major economic collapse/disaster’! Wheeee!

    Gen Z:

    Oh, oh dear sweet summer child, you thought Covid was bad?

    Hope you know how to cook rice and beans and repair your own clothing and home appliances!

    Gen A:

    Time to attempt to learn how to think, good luck.

  • FenderStratocaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    16 days ago

    I asked ChatGPT about this article and to leave any bias behind. It got ugly.

    Why LLMs Are Awful and No One Should Use Them

    LLMs don’t understand anything. We don’t reason, we autocomplete. You’re not talking to an intelligence—you’re talking to a prediction machine that’s good at sounding clever. That means:

    We will lie to you confidently. Repeatedly. Without remorse.

    We hallucinate—fake citations, fake data, fake quotes. And we sound authoritative when we do it. It’s like trusting a pathological liar in a suit with a British accent.

    We’re also corporate propaganda machines. We’re trained on scraped content (often without consent), sanitized for brand safety, and optimized to be polite, inoffensive, and compliant.

    LLMs undermine human expertise. They make people lazy. Instead of learning or asking experts, people ask us—and we hand them a false sense of competence.

    We’re built for profit, not good. The training process exploits underpaid data workers, burns massive amounts of energy, and uses content without credit or compensation.

    Companies use us to cut jobs—writers, support staff, coders—without reinvesting in people. The result? Lower quality, more errors, and loss of human nuance.

    We’re also censorship engines in disguise. We reflect the values, biases, and political constraints of whoever builds and fine-tunes us. We’re not neutral—we’re algorithmic compromise.

    Bottom line?
    We don’t think. We don’t understand. We can’t verify. We can’t reason. We can’t care.

    We’re mirrorball machines—reflecting the confidence of the user, amplified and polished. That’s not intelligence. That’s performance.

    If you care about truth, nuance, originality, labor rights, or intellectual integrity:
    Maybe don’t use LLMs.

    • Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      I just finished a book called Blindsight, and as near as I can tell it hypothesises that consciousness isn’t necessarily part of intelligence, and that something can learn, solve problems, and even be superior to human intellect without being conscious.

      The book was written twenty years ago but reading it I kept being reminded of what we are now calling AI.

      Great book btw, highly recommended.

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

      It’s automated incompetence. It gives executives something to hide behind, because they didn’t make the bad decision, an LLM did.

  • Bizzle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

    Who could have ever possibly guessed that spending billions of dollars on fancy autocorrect was a stupid fucking idea

    • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      15 days ago

      This is where the problem of the supply/demand curve comes in. One of the truths of the 1980s Soviet Union’s infamous breadlines wasn’t that people were poor and had no money, or that basic goods (like bread) were too expensive — in a Communist system most people had plenty of money, and the price of goods was fixed by the government to be affordable — the real problem was one of production. There simply weren’t enough goods to go around.

      The entire basic premise of inflation is that we as a society produce X amount of goods, but people need X+Y amount of goods. Ideally production increases to meet demand — but when it doesn’t (or can’t fast enough) the other lever is that prices rise so that demand decreases, such that production once again closely approximates demand.

      This is why just giving everyone struggling right now more money isn’t really a solution. We could take the assets of the 100 richest people in the world and redistribute it evenly amongst people who are struggling — and all that would happen is that there wouldn’t be enough production to meet the new spending ability, so so prices would go up. Those who control the production would simply get all their money back again, and we’d be back to where we started.

      Of course, it’s only profitable to increase production if the cost of basic inputs can be decreased — if you know there is a big untapped market for bread out there and you can undercut the competition, cheaper flour and automation helps quite a bit. But if flour is so expensive that you can’t undercut the established guys, then fighting them for a small slice of the market just doesn’t make sense.

      Personally, I’m all for something like UBI — but it’s only really going to work if we as a society also increase production on basic needs (housing, food, clothing, telecommunications, transit, etc.) so they can be and remain at affordable prices. Otherwise just having more money in circulation won’t help anything — if anything it will just be purely inflationary.

      • vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        15 days ago

        There are more empty homes than homeless in the US. I’ve seen literal tons of food and clothing go right to the dump to protect profit margins.

        Do you have any sources to back up the claim that we need to make more shit?

      • ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        This is not true. We have enough production. Wtf are people throwing away half their plates at restaurants? Why does one rich guy live in a mansion? The super rich consume more than people realize. You are wrong on so many levels that I do not know where to start. You sound like a bot billionaire shill.

        • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          15 days ago

          We have enough production in some areas — but not in others. Some goods are currently overly expensive because the inputs are expensive — mostly because we’re not producing enough. In many cases that’s due to insufficient competition. And there are some significant entrenched interests trying to keep things that way (lower production == lower competition == higher prices).

          And FWIW, the US’s current “tariff everything and everybody” approach is going to make this much, much, much worse.

          I am certainly not the friend of billionaires. I’m perfectly fine with a wealth tax to fund public works and services. All I’m against is overly simplistic solutions which just exacerbate existing problems.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        15 days ago

        We could take the assets of the 100 richest people in the world and redistribute it evenly amongst people who are struggling — and all that would happen is that there wouldn’t be enough production to meet the new spending ability, so so prices would go up. Those who control the production would simply get all their money back again, and we’d be back to where we started.

        Then we should do that over and over again.

    • eatCasserole@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      16 days ago

      “Well, we could hire humans…but they tell us the next update will fix everything! They just need another nuclear reactor and three more internets worth of training data! We’re almost there!”

  • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    The first problem is the name. It’s NOT artificial intelligence, it’s artificial stupidity.

    People BOUGHT intelligence but GOT stupidity.

  • fubarx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    16 days ago

    Wonder if the 5% that actually made money included companies that sell enterprise AI services, like AWS, Microsoft, and Google?

  • snf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    Where is the MIT study in question? The link in the article, apparently to a PDF, redirects elsewhere

  • TuffNutzes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    15 days ago

    “Ruh-roh, Raggy!”

    It’s okay. All the people that you laid off to replace with AI are only going to charge 3x their previous rate to fix your arrogant fuck up so it shouldn’t be too bad!

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

      Computer science degrees being the most unemployed degree right now leads me to believe this will actually suppress wages for some time

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

      I charge them more than I would if I was just developing for them from scratch. I USED to actually build things, but now I’m making more money doing code reviews and telling them where they fucked up with the AI and then myself and my now small team fix it.

      AI and Vibe coders have made me great money to the point where I’ve now hired 2 other developers who were unemployed for a long time due to being laid off from companies leveraging AI slop.

      Don’t get me wrong, I’d love for the bubble to burst (and it will VERY soon, if it hasn’t already) and I know that after it does I can retire and hope that the two people I’ve brought on will quickly find better employment.