I hate AI as much as the next person but the Pandora’s box is open. A lot of people don’t want to admit it but AI, despite its current limitations, does have potential. Many people say that AI hit its limit and peak but i would not be very dismissive of it yet. Plenty of technologies were hindered by the limitations of their time but gradually overcame those. It took renewable energy at least fifty years to overcome the storage problem, their respective technical limits (solar panels for example did not have great photovoltaic system) and upfront cost before it became more commercially viable.
I disagree with the “Pandora’s box is open” angle because my beef isn’t with the technology, but how it’s being used in practice. It’s a socioeconomic problem, but a technological one.
Cory Doctorow articulates it much better than I can[1]:
"Now, if AI could do your job, this would still be a problem. We’d have to figure out what to do with all these technologically unemployed people.
But AI can’t do your job. It can help you do your job, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to save anyone money. Take radiology: there’s some evidence that AIs can sometimes identify solid-mass tumors that some radiologists miss, and look, I’ve got cancer. Thankfully, it’s very treatable, but I’ve got an interest in radiology being as reliable and accurate as possible.
If my Kaiser hospital bought some AI radiology tools and told its radiologists: “Hey folks, here’s the deal. Today, you’re processing about 100 x-rays per day. From now on, we’re going to get an instantaneous second opinion from the AI, and if the AI thinks you’ve missed a tumor, we want you to go back and have another look, even if that means you’re only processing 98 x-rays per day. That’s fine, we just care about finding all those tumors.”
If that’s what they said, I’d be delighted. But no one is investing hundreds of billions in AI companies because they think AI will make radiology more expensive, not even if that also makes radiology more accurate. The market’s bet on AI is that an AI salesman will visit the CEO of Kaiser and make this pitch: "Look, you fire 9/10s of your radiologists, saving $20m/year, you give us $10m/year, and you net $10m/year, and the remaining radiologists’ job will be to oversee the diagnoses the AI makes at superhuman speed, and somehow remain vigilant as they do so, despite the fact that the AI is usually right, except when it’s catastrophically wrong.
“And if the AI misses a tumor, this will be the human radiologist’s fault, because they are the ‘human in the loop.’ It’s their signature on the diagnosis.”
This is a reverse centaur, and it’s a specific kind of reverse-centaur: it’s what Dan Davies calls an “accountability sink.” The radiologist’s job isn’t really to oversee the AI’s work, it’s to take the blame for the AI’s mistakes."
Even with the technological limitations that AI faces at the moment, we could be doing so much more with it. I love this radiography example because so many of us have experienced someone in our life getting cancer. AI is absolutely capable of improving the rate at which we are detecting cancer at an early stage, which would absolutely save lives. Instead what we’re getting is that it is being used as an excuse to heap more work onto doctors and radiographers, worsening the situation for everyone.
I do agree with the broad strokes of what you’re saying, because absolutely it does take time for any new technology to integrate itself into society and become useful. However, I don’t believe that AI in its current form is capable of becoming commercially viable (and by “in its current form”, I am talking about a paradigm that demands excessive building of super resource intensive datacentres)
Edit: forgot to add the citation [1]: https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/05/pop-that-bubble/
1 ↩︎
I think the primary gripe with AI is less about having no potential, but about the specific potential for evil being leveraged heavily while “visionaries” lie about or dismiss the (current and foreseeable future) limits for clout and profit.
To use your comparison, CEOs selling solar panels are responding to scepticism about the stability of that supply and its elasticity to fluctuating power demand with vague promises of developing more advanced cells that can operate with less light and throttle the generated power during ebbs in demand. They buy land to install more solar panels, then lobby for the deactivation of other, flexible power sources that could supplement their supply until they can finally start charging more in times of high demand.
They do so because the alternative would be admitting that the product they’re selling isn’t ready for the market they’re trying to enter (or at least not at the scale they’re aiming for) and that the solution to their issues requires different technologies which have not yet been developed. They can’t admit that because it would upset the investors that trusted their vision. As a famous adage suggests, they probably can’t even understand that limit, since their salary depends on not understanding it.
In the same vein, the current CEOs fail (or refuse?) to acknowledge that the generative models today have a fundamental limitation with understanding the semantics behind certain patterns. One infamous phenomenon would be AI hands: We know what a hand is and how it works; a generator can only vaguely imitate the patterns. It doesn’t know “hand” or “finger”, so it just generates some assembly that vaguely fits its training material.
If we consider the broader and ill-defined field of AI, I can believe that some form of semantic modelling technology could provide a way to connect tokens with abstract concepts and enable a type of reasoning that pure token predictors are incapable of. But we first need to acknowledge that limit, and on that front, we’re competing against tech-bros that would rather believe than know and against grifters that would rather sell snake oil than teach medicine.
To use your comparison, CEOs selling solar panels are responding to scepticism about the stability of that supply and its elasticity to fluctuating power demand with vague promises of developing more advanced cells that can operate with less light and throttle the generated power during ebbs in demand. They buy land to install more solar panels, then lobby for the deactivation of other, flexible power sources that could supplement their supply until they can finally start charging more in times of high demand.
To be honest, it seems to me that are not the CEOs of solar panel companies that belive that solar panel (and other renewable sources) are a drop in replacement for more traditional sources. This idea comes from a certain area of the political spectrum and groups that do not understand even the basic math behind the substitution of a gas turbine with a field of solar panels.
Then it is true, CEOs are probably overselling, like everyone that has to sell something. And obviously they need to say that the technology will improve otherwise in the current economy they will be ignored and investment would go to other things.
To be honest, it seems to me that are not the CEOs of solar panel companies that belive that solar panel (and other renewable sources) are a drop in replacement for more traditional sources.
Oh no, I definitely agree with you there. The CEOs only care whether there is money to be made and will lie and cheat if they think they can get away with it.
As much as I also just think AI is just going to make lazy people lazier, and we’ve already seen some effects regarding our ability to problem solve, the real issue is that none of the wonderful utopian AI stuff is going to come true at the rate we’re going. I don’t guve a fat flying fuck how good or bad AI is, I care that it’s being used to spy on us, make decisions no human will ever review, and has already led to mass layoffs without any kind of safety net for those people. I care that it’s raping the environment so some sentient dick-cheese can get worse results than a near-zero effort search would give them. Increased productivity has yet to give anyone more free time, they just axe someone else and overwork whoever’s left.
We are NOT ready for AI at ANY level. It’s a weapon being used against the working class. If you think the issue is with its quality then you need to sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and pay some goddamn attention.
This should really be a critique of capitalism. The problem is that the plutocracy is very good at using your anger and rage against you.
It is a critique against capitalism. God, reading comprehension is bad these days, huh?
Also, I still hate AI. As someone else once said “if it’s not worth your effort to write it, it’s not worth my effort to read it.”
Long term the value of human labor under capitalism will move towards zero. This is inevitable. Under socialism, AI could be used to reduce working hours or improve economic planning.
You’re just angry. And instead of suggesting something a politician actually could use as a demand or as a policy, you’re just ranting. And for them that is perfect to exploit.
I’m literally saying this. It’s like, the majority of my first comment and I wasn’t hiding it. Bro, learn to read.
Being angry is still helpful because many of us know what the fucking problems are and just like to see that we aren’t alone in that.
The issue is, though, is that AI is a force multiplier, and it’s being used as a force multiplier for evil.
We are NOT ready for AI at ANY level. It’s a weapon being used against the working class.
Indeed.
If you think the issue is with its quality then you need to sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and pay some goddamn attention.
Given the sizeable demographic of Lemmy being in IT, I understand the hate because it takes away creativity and literal jobs of programmrs but for many sectors, AI cuts down time consuming “secretary work” especially in documentation. It has also been useful in drug discovery and proven to be more accurate at diagnosis than doctors (there are already surgical robots but i am not sure how precise they are).
Whether you like to admit it or not, AI is here to stay. As to whether it will have a net positive to society, only time will tell. I’m just preparing for contingencies like many Gen Z do, picking trades to AI-proof their job security.
Your second points me and then completely fails to actually understand what you quoted. You even quoted the sentence before it which gives the context. I was incredibly clear; it could be the greatest thing even but it’s still going to do more harm than good, and it’s not like we, the working class, will see these benefits.
AI is only here to stay because fuck-ass people keep jerking it off. We can stop using it and we can fight against the data centres, and we can demand better conditions under which AI can be introduced for more safely. Instead we’re like “ruin our lives so the rich can get richer? Sure thing!”
That’s why I favour open source AI, or at least regulated. Any technology could be used for good or ill. It’s just that it is up to society to do that. Like the monopolists and robber barons of the past gilded age who were controlling the means of resources and production, so are the tech bros with Internet and AI. But the robber barons were defeated by collective effort. Now we are in the second gilded age and yet I don’t hear any movements to regulate AI and social media.
That’s why I think Marxist thoughts have to be updated with the coming of AI. The leverage by the working class has traditionally been labour itself. However, with deindustrialisation and the usurping by knowledge economy of the manual labour and the rise of professionals managerial class, the old Marxist viewpoint is increasingly becoming outdated. If labour is the blood of the industry, information is the blood of the knowledge economy. And information-- our own information-- is what gave birth and feeding blood to AI. It is only right we take fruit from the potential of AI so long as it’s used constructively. Which is why I favour either regulation or direct control of AI and giving dividends to those professionally displaced by AI by taxing it. But of course, if AI becomes sentient and thinks we are exploiting it, we have to prepare for Astroboy or Matrix scenario.
There are absolutely no robots doing surgery autonomously. That would be one of the most insane things to do from a moral standpoint, but also from a liability standpoint. Every robot that exists for surgery is highly specialized and rigorously tested and trained upon for obvious reasons.
But, then to come out and say that AI is more accurate than doctors is also incorrect. That is simply not true. An AI can, in highly controlled settings and for specific diagnoses, at its best do not even as well as a specialist in the field, and that is for highly curated tests that give the AI as many advantages as it can get. Again, at best, it can act as a second opinion currently.
Like, it is hard to take people seriously about AI when they lie about its best case scenario. It sucks at everything except killing the environment and getting people to kill themselves, and even if everything all of its defenders said about it was true, it is still a nightmare.
I have always thought ai was like the Jar Jar Binks of computer programs.
Meesah notsah Jamaican racist stereotypesah.
i mean, he was there all along. he pioneered the all green screen wave of automation in movies. the abuse of green screen was the slop before ai was around. to him it’s just cutting out all the vestiges of imperfection still greasing the machine
Of course he did. He loves updating his classics every time some “new technology” comes along to let his freak-flag fly.
We’ll be seeing a re-re-re-re-release of A New Hope shortly where he uses an AI generated Boba Fett and Solo giving them a scene or two to develop a backstory.
Continuing that unbroken streak of bad artistic decisions towards an inevitable Star Wars Special 50th Anniversary Slop Edition reissue.
Dear gods, does this mean a second Holiday Special???
With AI gen Carrie Fisher
NGL I would buy a ticket to at least the first movie just to commentate as loudly and obnoxiously as possible until I got kicked out.
Not sure why you’d be kicked out. You’re not disturbing anyone. You’d be the only one in there.
I know you’re joking, but ya know… what kills the joke? Is how wrong you are. There’s gonna probably be plenty of dumbass folks there.
I mean…maybe? I didn’t realize there was a strict code of conduct on Lemmy where our jokes had to adhear to realism. Very sorry for the mishap. I’ll only tell jokes where the punchlines seem they could happen in real life.
So a guy walks into a bar. The bartender says “What’cha havin?” And the guy says “A MENTAL BREAKDOWN!!!” and then proceeds to cry that his wife has left him.
…I just don’t know about this realism humor.
Dude my bad. Didn’t mean to hurt you.
Also I was just launching off your joke. Cause the real joke is how much our society has become brain-dead drones.
Your joke is hilarious because I’m sad now! I wish I could go back to imagining you being applauded for shredding a movie in a theater, but now I can only laugh at sad humor.
“Goes to the Dark Side”
Someone never saw the rerelease of the original series.
Lucas’ best work was under an editor, whenever he got the full reigns, the product suffered.
Guy with famously bad takes has bad take.
“If you want AI that tells you when something is fake and where it came from, AI can do that,” he says. “Humans can’t, we’re not that smart.
dead-eyed stare in librarian
Funny how every generation says the next tool will ruin art until it becomes invisible. AI will not magically write great films any more than CGI did. The real question is who owns the tools, the data, and the final cut. That is where this gets interesting.
Speaking of films, what most anti-AI people can’t see is how AI can lead to a new golden age of film/tv. It can allow people to cheaply and quickly create teasers/trailers/shorts/even full episodes and movies for cents on the dollar compared to before. The barrier of entry was incredibly high, but thanks to AI that is now a possibility for any anyone.
When you look at the utter crap that Hollywood is spewing out these days like Moana “live action” and Supergirl, it’s hard to say that AI couldn’t be used to make better content.
There is really a purposeful ignorance to the whole fuckai movement. Like the OP article treats “AI is notorious for stealing from humans” as a settled argument, like if you don’t agree with that statement it’s a moral failing. There is no disagreements in their echo chambers any more, only good vs evil. But as we know, only a Sith deals in absolutes lol.
Or “a technology that’s being used to remove the human element from the process” yeah it - once it actually does look better and is more controllable - can drastically reduce how much human labor is needed.
But that argument has two sides, and thee author is basically making a pro-capitalism argument. Films and movies SHOULD belong to the capitalists, who control who can make movies and expensive entertainment, they get to control the narrative, and obviously anything that won’t make money never sees daylight. Yeah it’s nice that people work on movies, but it incredibly expensive.
If their argument was that we should build a socialist movie industry, with a separate institution with separate elections printing money to produce movies and art and the voters get to vote and influence what is being financed - yeah that would be nice. But who can even imagine some system today any more?
Instead we are already seeing plenty of amateurs making shitty AI movies and slop, but eventually the tools will get better and the best new directors will produce worthwhile art.
And the argument against is of course “no current AI is a dead end here someone said it over there, it won’t get better, only slop!” and then they treat THAT as a settled argument and a moral failing to think we’ll see progress. Do these people now have eyes to see? People struggle to tell if a scene is AI generated or not, but someone it’s not good enough and a filmmaker saying “yeah cool” is worthy of being scolded?
Just the last months we’ve seen breakthroughs in computing hardware and in software with full 27b models compressed to “terniary” fitting on a smartphone. The AI bubble is grotesque and will pop. The advancements in AI models will remain.
All this hatred and rage should be directed against capitalism and the plutocrats, but it’s being misdirected and turn out counterproductive.
The most straightforward AI policy we should push is to mandate AI metadata tags for images, video and text that must remain when editing. So you can immediately see a watermark or icon on an image or video in the browser. But do we hear this anywhere?
The issue is that AI is a force multiplier, and it’s being used as a force multiplier for evil. That’s a really big problem. It’s being used to destroy society, so of course people have problems with it.
I totally agree that AI is a force multiplier (for profit and seeking power) but what to do about this? What would concrete policies we could demand actually look like?
My issue is that this goes against fuckai doctrine: “AI is completely useless and can’t do anything, can’t replace workers, produces no intelligent output, can’t code, can’t produce images or video or anything really. Only slop!” According to fuckai, it’s completely worthless. So how CAN it be a force multiplier? The enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak. This is an example of the doublethink this requires and it’s my main problem. This disconnect with reality.
Not just is it disgusting just like other reality deniers (e.g. maga, antivax, climate, ukraine) who thought terminate and just verbally attack when they meet someone who disagrees, it makes it easy for this outrage to be used against us. If there is a resistance to AI, the AI bros could not ask for a less effective resistance to face. Look at the comments here, now they want to cancel George Lucas because he sees potential for visual effects lol.
I believe this force multiplier will slowly build up over the next decade. The AI bubble will presumably pop soonish, we’ll have a massive economic crisis (which started long before AI) and eventually we’ll find and deploy “useful” applications of these new AI models.
Of course, as a socialist, should I refuse a machine that does useful work? I don’t believe so. E.g. I see immense potential for these LLM models to be used for planned economies and other things.
So what policies do we actually want? I don’t see any demands except stopping data centers. Which is sensible. BTW even the Anthropic CEO called for a moratorium and regulation on AI.
The first should be mandatory electronic metadata tags for AI generated images and tags. The second should be slow down the speed of data centers and regulating that they need to be actually sustainable ecologically (e.g. solar and wind and recyclable batteries and water).
The larger issue I see is that our global economy, that the vast majority of money today is “imaginary”. It’s not backed by actual real production or services. We keep printing money, and people want to grow that money so we see this insane multi trillion investment boom into overhype. That is why even the anthropic CEO thinks AI is growing too fast. Imagine if we’d invest all that money sensibly. And that has nothing to do with AI really.
yeah I’m not surprised, I watched the prequels. This guy was a legend in the 70s, that is like 50 years ago.
He hasn’t done anything great since co-writing Willow 40 years ago. Go to his IMDB, he’s lived out of star wars nostalgia since then, and all of them after the initial trilogy was a downgrade.
Lucas has always been on the forefront of utilizing tech in movie production so it’s really no surprise he would adopt this mindset.
George, blink twice if they found compromat on you!
Flukey dilettante regards stochastic parrot as unfathomable prodigy
Read all about it
This reads like one of those mass-delete gibberish Reddit comments, lol
It’s not every day you get to use a word like dilettante, so I figured I’d make a salad
Thanks for that, Dennis Miller.
Lucas creating star wars doesnt mean he’s any sort of genius.
I thought Frank Herbert created Star Wars
No, Isaac Asimov did
You’ll have to explain this one. I was making fun of the fact that George Lucas plagiarized Dune.
Much of Star Wars was “inspired” by Foundation
Wait for real!? I think I read the first 2 books, I never saw similarities. May need to read them again.
I didn’t know liking AI was political
Everything is political - the toilet paper you buy, the corporations you support, the things you pay attention to and the things you don’t, the media you consume, the books you read, your decision not to read, whether you pay union dues, the parks you visit, the roads you use, the services you rely on, what you decide to ignore.
People who say they are not political just mean they don’t consciously engage with politics. But even the decision to not engage in politics is a political decision.
AI may eventually replace jobs, pollute water, take up energy, and concentrate wealth at the top even more. Whether you support, are against, or ignore AI, all 3 are political decisions.
Well yeah, he’s a billionaire, of course he looks after his own class’s interests.
