The current stuff is smoke and mirrors and not intelligent in any meaningful sense, but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. It doesn't have to be robots with guns to screw over people. Just imagine trying to get PharmaGPT to let you refill your meds, or having to deal with BankGPT trying to figure out why it transfered your rent payment twice. And companies are sure as hell thinking about using this stuff to get rid of human decisionmakers.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is totally true but that's a different direction than the danger in the marketing as discussed above.

The media is full of "AI is so amazingly great, we are all going to lose our jobs and it will take over the world."

That's a quite different message than what's really the case, which is "AI is so shitty, that it will literaly kill people with bad advice when given the chance. And business leaders are so shit that they willingly trust AI, just because it's cheaper."

[–] Baylahoo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is my biggest concern. I'm in a position where (potentially in the near future) I see AI being used as an excuse to do work quicker so we can focus on other things more but still have to review the AI response before agreeing/signing off. Reviewing for accuracy takes just as long as doing it yourself when it's strongly regulated and it comes down to revisions and document numbers. Much less making a sound argument that actually is up to date with that documentation. So either I trust the AI short cut and open myself up to errors, or redo all the work for them. No gain in time efficiency with shorter timelines. I'd rather make something and have it flag things that I can check so I'm more sure of my own work. What I do shouldn't be faster, but it can be more error free. It would take a lot of training and updating of training with each iteration of documentation change. I could be the slave of change, with more expectations, with no actual improvement of the tools I have (in fact more risk of issues with the tools being used).

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm in agile development, in a reasonably safe-from-AI position (scrum master).

There has already been a trial of software development by AI, with different generative AIs in each agile role; and it worked.

Bard claims to be able to write unit tests

I can imagine many IT jobs becoming less skilled

[–] Baylahoo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

Sorry this is months after, but it's cool to see it worked. I use a software called XXX Agile and it's not the worst I work with but when ported to my company has some flaws. There's a long project to switch somewhere else for document control and people who should know much better than me are worried it will fill some gaps but open us up to way more.

[–] Boi@reddthat.com 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We thought we were getting Skynet but, instead we got Super Clippy and I Can't Believe It's Not Art Theft

[–] Rubanski@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I for one am grateful it's just super clippy (yet)

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

We thought we were getting Skynet, but instead it was "I Can't Believe It's Not Art Theft" that triggered the revolution and lead us to WWIII.

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Do you see any reason to think enough iterations of random nodes in a large enough network could result in emergent conscious intelligence?

Or are you more of a spiritualist than a materialist when it comes to the mind?