He cites Ayn Rand. That’s the end of all credibility.
Folks who evangelize AI always seemed weird to me. If someone has to try and convince you to use a massive breakthrough then its probably not as massive a breakthrough as one would think.
We didn’t have thinkpieces on why cell phones should be used, or why we shouldn’t call that new (at the time) service Netflix trash. We saw immediate use cases and advantages and went in on them. The plagiarism machine largely doesn’t have that going for it.
More recently, 3D printers. They absolutely overpromised and overhyped in the early days, but people found uses for them in day 1.
Its almost like we need a “next big thing” every other year otherwise capitalism collapses. And if we dont find anything we just make something up.
He killed me with “AI Creativity” and nailed the coffin shut with “AI Emotional Intelligence.”
Eat a bag of dicks.
Notice how more of these articles trying to defend AI slop (but pleeez don’t call it slop) are coming out lately? They know we know it’s all shit and they’re trying to stave off the inevitable.
I’m not sure we should be pushing traffic to this and stories like it. We’re helping them keep AI buzzing in the media which is what they want.
Post it if you must but just copy and paste the quoted blog or highlights and make a disclaimer. I just read
andan article I probably should have skipped.I will skip it on your behalf. If someone else will also skip who would have otherwise clicked the link specifically for this purpose, it will have written off your page view.
Exactly. I never read this trash.
“Computer Scientist”
Says it’s not a bubble and not mere slop.
The dude is invested heavily in it and can’t get out.
Louis Rosenberg, a computer scientist and CEO of Unanimous AI
Totally unbiased.
P-p-please stop talking-down my baby.
How do we know this is even the opinion of this
computer scientistsloperator and not just some AI bullshit?
I call AI apologists “clanker wankers”
[slow clap]
Like it or not, we will soon live in a world where many of the faces we encounter will be generative masks worn by AI agents.
I don’t get what he’s predicting here. Is he saying we’re going to have AI robots with human faces walking around soon?
The reason investment levels are staggering (and they are staggering) is that AI will soon inhabit all aspects of our lives, often embodied as intelligent actors we have to engage with throughout our day.
Who is going to make me engage with these AI “intelligent actors?”
It’s human pattern matching gone haywire. For people who hyperfocus on businesses and profit streams, they’re going to see the next big thing in anything that looks remotely disruptive.
- The promise of cell phones -> everyone will use it -> massive profit for first movers.
- The promise of the Internet -> everyone will use it -> massive profit for first movers.
- The promise of smartphones -> everyone will use it -> massive profit for first movers.
- The promise of gig economy -> everyone will use it -> massive profit for first movers.
- etc.
These LLMs/gen AI are superficially impressive, had an enough money behind them and had evangelists willing to oversell. Once enough companies start investing, no one wants to be left out and it snowballs from there.
Now, like an MLM, they have to get more buy-in or they take the loss. Anyone already invested needs more money to come in to get out with a profit. They’ll say whatever the fuck it takes.
The inventor of fire wants people to stop saying that fire is cold. He insists on the utility of combustible gases and is adamant that some day, people will find a use for fire that makes the fire industry profitable.
I’m getting downvotes so I feel like i need to clarify: my point is that if AI were everything techbros are hyping it up to be, they wouldn’t have to hype it. Fire ‘caught on’ because its utility was immediately apparent. There never were fire ‘deniers’ because it was of undeniable benefit to humankind. Not so with the SlopChop.
Spotted the clank-fucker.
Riddle me this, clank-fucker: When fire was invented, did anybody need to be persuaded of its utility or did people generally kinda flock to this whole idea? When mobile phones were invented, did people have difficulty imagining a use for it?
When people have to resort to desperate tactics like stuffing their technology into everything, whether it makes sense or not, in a bid to get users, this tells me that the technology has no uses that people can imagine. So clanks like the ones you enjoy fucking are more on the “blockchain” side of the technological fence and less on the “fire” side.
You clank fucker.
whoosh i guess
Touch grass comrade
