“IA” have very few applications besides faking things. It fakes someone having read that mail, it fakes having wrote that mail, it fakes art, it fakes “helping you”, it instead do fake job for you.
It’s the “IA” spite can look too spiteful, but there’s a key difference I think between “IA” and actually useful technologies: A computer helps you do things, not only work, better and faster, “IA” do it for you. You don’t “learn” to use an “IA”, you do have to learn to use internet and a computer.
“IA” is less akin to something like a computer and more like NFT, Radium Watches, etc. “Innovation” for the sake of selling instead of progress. Has is uses? Of course, but it create far more problems that it tries or even cares to solve and it’s inclusion on everything just for the sake of selling just screams like plastic, radium, Teflon, lead on gasoline, etc. The promised miraculous new invention. Sooner or later we are going to pay for it. Again. All of us.
“IA is very good”
I don’t know chief. I get your point, but quoting the people who benefits the most out of it seems like a conflict of interest.
DuPont said Sprays weren’t that bad for the planet, backed it up with a DuPont financed “research” and used DuPont financed media.
So, here is another quote:
Dario Amodei — quote on opacity: “People outside the field are often surprised and alarmed to learn that we do not understand how our own AI creations work. They are right to be concerned: this lack of understanding is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology.”
I think is very different paying for building a society more complex than what we can understand and 10 million deaths by lead poisoning because some rich family preferred even more money over the life of everyone else. But you do you. The way you think “we will pay wether we like or not so we better make it count and take the biggest debt we can” is what have the world rotten as a whole.