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.

  • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 hours ago

    AI has it’s place, but they need to stop trying to shoehorn it into anything and everything. It’s the new “internet of things” cramming of internet connectivity into shit that doesn’t need it.

    • poopkins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      You’re saying the addition of Copilot into MS Paint is anything short of revolutionary? You heretic.

  • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    7 hours 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.

    • ImmersiveMatthew@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I too am a developer and I am sure you will agree that while the overall intelligence of models continues to rise, without a concerted focus on enhancing logic, the promise of AGI likely will remain elusive.  AI cannot really develop without the logic being dramatically improved, yet logic is rather stagnant even in the latest reasoning models when it comes to coding at least.

      I would argue that if we had much better logic with all other metrics being the same, we would have AGI now and developer jobs would be at risk. Given the lack of discussion about the logic gaps, I do not foresee AGI arriving anytime soon even with bigger a bigger models coming.

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        If we had AGI, the number of jobs that would be at risk would be enormous. But these LLMs aren’t it.

        They are language models and until someone can replace that second L with Logic, no amount of layering is going to get us there.

        Those layers are basically all the previous AI techniques laid over the top of an LLM but anyone that has a basic understanding of languages can tell you how illogical they are.

    • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      AI can look at a bajillion examples of code and spit out its own derivative impersonation of that code.

      AI isn’t good at doing a lot of other things software engineers actually do. It isn’t very good at attending meetings, gathering requirements, managing projects, writing documentation for highly-industry-specific products and features that have never existed before, working user tickets, etc.

  • sheetzoos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 hours 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
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour 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?

  • SSNs4evr@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The problem could be that, with all the advancements in technology just since 1970, all the medical advancements, all the added efficiencies at home and in the workplace, the immediate knowledge-availability of the internet, all the modern conveniences, and the ability to maintain distant relationships through social media, most of our lives haven’t really improved.

    We are more rushed and harried than ever, life expectancy (in the US) has decreased, we’ve gone from 1 working adult in most families to 2 working adults (with more than 1 job each), income has gone down. Recreation has moved from wholesome outdoor activities to an obese population glued to various screens and gaming systems.

    The “promise of the future” through technological advancement, has been a pretty big letdown. What’s AI going to bring? More loss of meaningful work? When will technology bring fewer working hours and more income - at the same time? When will technology solve hunger, famine, homelessness, mental health issues, and when will it start cleaning my freaking house and making me dinner?

    When all the jobs are gone, how beneficial will our overlords be, when it comes to universal basic income? Most of the time, it seems that more bad comes from out advancements than good. It’s not that the advancements aren’t good, it’s that they’re immediately turned to wartime use considerations and profiteering for a very few.

  • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Just about every major advance in technology like this enhanced the power of the capitalists who owned it and took power away from the workers who were displaced.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 hours ago

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

  • Naevermix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours 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.

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      the same could be applied to humans… but then who would buy consumer goods?

      In all seriousness though the only solution is for the cost of living to go down and for a UBI to exist so that the average person can choose to not work and strikes are a legitimate threat to business because they can more feasibly last for months.

    • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      But as for the people who worked with horses, I’m pretty sure they found different jobs - it’s not like they were sent to a glue factory.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    remember when tech companies did fun events with actual interesting things instead of spending three hours on some new stupid ai feature?

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    So far AI has only aggravated me by interrupting my own online activities.

  • TylerBourbon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours 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.

    • StJohnMcCrae@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      “I dont believe AI will ever be more than essentially a parlar trick that fools you into thinking it’s intelligent.”

      So in other words, it will achieve human-level intellect.