Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think this movement around 'debunking AI' is entirely the fault of marketing and company CEOs inflating the potential around generative AI to such ridiculous amounts. Of course after CEOs toured the country shouting about the dangers and virtues of AI as if it will destroy the world or remake it into something better, and that it will do it any minute now, everyone is 'annoyed' now that neither thing has happened already. How long ago were people screaming and crying that AI development must be slowed down by world governments or else?

Similar tone in this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8ByoAt5gCA

I say 'annoyed' with quotes, because as far as I can tell it's largely journalists and the media machine that seem to be taking a gleeful lap telling everyone how AI hasn't measured up after promoting the idea that AI will steal all their jobs and ruin the internet.

I think that's the fun part of some of these perspectives, that inherent conflict, that journalists want to convince us that AI is very dangerous technology and that it's stealing all their work and it's going to put everyone out of a job... but also AI is not living up to expectations and it's a nothing burger and all these companies are a joke selling lies to people. It's really hard square these conflicting storylines being served to us by the press (who are obviously biased against the technology that they think will destroy their livelihoods).

I hate to sound like one of those "you can't just journalism!" cranks, because I feel that way about nothing else, but in this case sometimes the vitriol coming from journalists about AI related technologies seems a bit much.



> I think this movement around 'debunking AI' is entirely the fault of marketing and company CEOs inflating the potential around generative AI to such ridiculous amounts.

I don't think you should let the AI research community off the hook so easily. Some of the most obnoxious and influential voices are researchers who are taken as credible authorities. I'm thinking for instance of the disgraceful "Sparks of AGI" paper from Sebastien Bubeck's research team at Microsoft Research, also certain "godfathers", etc.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: