- AI CEOs lying to investors and claiming their AIs will one day be impossibly smart.
- Companies that are consumers of AI products having CEOs pushing AI onto their employees as a quick fix thinking that they will get magic productivity gains and be able to cut staff if they just force employees to use it (I have even seen some real examples of companies adding AI usage to performance reviews)
- Companies claiming to be AI-first without launching any significant AI-powered product
But I do think it’s a very measured way to read the situation to refrain from joining the knee-jerk into being an AI-hater. That sentiment is basically just a counter-culture reaction to dislike AI, especially since it seems to most negatively impact creatives such as illustrators.
I think that some professionals who refrain from leveraging it from an ethical standpoint will legitimately fall behind their labor competition.
That has got to be one of the most easily gamed metrics that there ever has been.
"Make sure you use this website that costs the company money frequently"
I wonder how it will play out when the costs of using an AI service are no longer subsidised by venture capital? (For example Uber is just as expensive as normal taxis now.)
> That sentiment is basically just a counter-culture reaction to dislike AI, especially since it seems to most negatively impact creatives such as illustrators.
Worth considering: the blog in question that hosts this article is a furry blog. The furry community is largely creatives.
And I totally understand why counter cultural types have latched on to disliking AI especially since some of its biggest proponents are incredibly corporate and, well, lame as fuck.
I also think that it’s a technology that didn't develop with some counterculture chops like many earlier technology innovations.
E.g., we could think about something like crypto that had an uphill battle against the establishment and was created with some level of ideological independence.
There are even some more corporate disruptions that plain and simple had better marketing behind them, like how Airbnb and Uber had widely disliked incumbents to “beat” in the market. Early Uber or Airbnb users were basically “beating the system.” At least, that’s how a lot of people perceived them, even if that didn’t turn out to be the reality.
In contrast, AI has felt much more like a corporate circlejerk among the wealthiest super-billionaires. There hasn’t even been the slightest facade of genuine do-goodery in this technology. Some wildly well-funded companies led by sociopathic robot-human CEOs made a plagiarism machine that my boss now insists I use for all my work.
I think that usually the people in the middle of the two extremes have the right thought process going on. It’s clear to me that AI is a great tool that isn’t going away, but perhaps its most passionate champions and detractors both need to settle down.
Some more annoying personas in the AI space:
- AI CEOs lying to investors and claiming their AIs will one day be impossibly smart.
- Companies that are consumers of AI products having CEOs pushing AI onto their employees as a quick fix thinking that they will get magic productivity gains and be able to cut staff if they just force employees to use it (I have even seen some real examples of companies adding AI usage to performance reviews)
- Companies claiming to be AI-first without launching any significant AI-powered product
But I do think it’s a very measured way to read the situation to refrain from joining the knee-jerk into being an AI-hater. That sentiment is basically just a counter-culture reaction to dislike AI, especially since it seems to most negatively impact creatives such as illustrators.
I think that some professionals who refrain from leveraging it from an ethical standpoint will legitimately fall behind their labor competition.