Technology

68400 readers

2975 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

840

Most Americans think AI won’t improve their lives, survey says (arstechnica.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

209 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I trust you've volunteered for it to replace you then. It being so beneficial to society, and all.

It means less people do more work.

And then those people no longer working... do what, exactly? Fewer well-paying jobs, same number of people, increasing costs. Math not working out here.

The fact that people are being replaced means that AI actually has tremendous value for our society.

Oh, it has value. Just not for society (it could that's the sad part). For very specific people though, yeah, value. Just got to step on all the little people along the way, like we've always done, eh?

Yeah, rather than volunteering its more likely you lack a basic characteristic of humanity some of like to refer to as "empathy" instead. And if -- giving you the benefit of the doubt -- you're just a troll... well, my statement stands.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I trust you've volunteered for it to replace you then. It being so beneficial to society, and all.

Yes. If I get replaced by something more efficient I accept that. I am no longer worth the position of my job. I will look for something else and try to find ways to apply some of my skillsets in other ways. I may do some further training and education, or just accept a lower paying job if that's not possible.

And then those people no longer working... do what, exactly? Fewer well-paying jobs, same number of people, increasing costs. Math not working out here.

Can you elaborate? I don't quiet understand what you mean by that. The people who no longer work need to find something else. There will remain only a fraction that can never find another job again. And that fraction is offset by the increased productivity of society.

Oh, it has value. Just not for society (it could that's the sad part). For very specific people though, yeah, value. Just got to step on all the little people along the way, like we've always done, eh?

Can you specify "specific"? What little people? If you use very vague terminology like that you should back it up with some arguments. I personally see no reason why AI would disadvantage working people any more than the sewing machine did back in the day. Besides, when you think about it you'll find that defining the terms you used is actually quiet difficult in a rapidly changing economy when you don't know to whom these terms might apply to in the end.

I have a feeling you're not actually thinking this through, or at least doing it on a very emotional level. This will not help you adapt to the changing world. The very opposite actually.