this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
50 points (79.8% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6315 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Rooki@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
admiralpatrick@lemmy.world
lemann@lemmy.world
ptz@dubvee.org
50
Current gen AI is unsustainable and there will be fallout of the eventual disappointment (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by someacnt@sopuli.xyz to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It seems most people are on board with the idea that AI will change the world. While I agree it having some impact, I also think it is overinflated by marketing. Operating an AI takes huge computing power, which costs heaps of money and energy. So how are people suggesting that exponential improvement is feasible? I do not get it.

Further, aren't we supposed to reduce energy usage? Why are we trying to overspend what little is left? I hate how this is taking priority over the environment.

Creating this post mainly to rant, I thought OpenAI firing Sam Altman was a signal for a reality check. It seems they are wrapping it up and trying to rehire him though.. What a drama.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

So most people are assuming AI will do all the work of a job. Maybe it will someday, but my experience today with it appears to be able to do 80% of the work with only 20% human effort put in. So no, its not doing 100% of the work, it doing 80%, but it does that 80% in seconds for what used to take me hours or days.

That is a huge improvement over no AI use at all.

[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Improvement for who

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

it appears to be able to do 80% of the work with only 20% human effort put in. So no, its not doing 100% of the work, it doing 80%,

I think that's the calculation most organizations will make. If AI can do 80% of a job, they can fire 80-90% of their employees in that task, and use the remainder as AI wranglers.

That's a pretty significant workforce reduction, and it means the folks who remain employed spend less of their time doing what they trained for, and more time in an IT/management role.