I would hope we can engage these questions with a little subtlety, rather than just "picking a team."
Clicks on the page.
[Yes] - [No]
I think it serves as a beautiful visualization of everything that is wrong in the world today. Not because of the question, nor the answers, but because of thinking something like that can just be divided into "Agree" and "Disagree" and somehow think that's a good idea.
A while ago I was paying for both Kagi Ultimate and Perplexity Premium to see which one fit my needs better. I ended up dropping my Perplexity subscription in favor of Kagi Ultimate, because Perplexity often lead me down rabbitholes of trying to beat the LLM into submission, where dropping to a simple keyword search would short circuit such loops.
Sometimes LLM assisted search helps me get to the information I want faster. It can be nice to be able to provide lots of context to narrow down your query to specifically what you need, in ways that do not work with keyword searches.
Sometimes keyword searches get me to the information I want faster, especially when I know there are specific resources where I'll find the information I want, such as looking at the documentation for a specific version of something, or some any kind of information that decays over time.
You give a question that requires nuance, forces it into a 50/50 situation and then you'll have everyone in the middle defaulting to "No" since it's closer than "Yes". Then use that as evidence for everyone hating AI.
Almost as good as a link to the relevant CXDC comic:
https://characterdatabase.org/wiki/index.php/Microsoft_Offic...
or to
-- Barbara
Thats without considering negative externalities of resource cost, operational cost, and the complete flooding of the shared internet commons with low quality slop.
Seemingly to me, adoption is happening without ads or promotion, how do you explain away this?
FWIW, I wouldn't say I'm "YES AI" nor "NO AI", but I do use LLMs daily to programming.
So many more people have clear stances against AI but the energy consumption of bitcoin was seldomly a hotly debated topic.
Lets be clear, technology advances. You can embrace it and learn it and use it, or you lose.
For me most shocking thing is: I wouldn't have expected so many people getting AI wrong or not getting it at all. 20 Years of software engineering and i have never experienced a technology so weird and crazy and with such a fast progress than AI/ML/Neural Networks.
Is it perfect? No. But if you would have asked ANYONE just a few years back "Hey i give you a 100 Million dollars, you will write some software however you like and I expect it to be able to solve any problem (an easy one for the start) but i will not tell you what it will be" we would have build something like IBM Watson and it would have just failed.
but we have a breakthrough in neural networks progress. I can ask it in german, in english, in shitty english and shitty german. I can generate any picture i want, i can generate videos.
This technology bridges computer and human. Its the FIRST TIME EVER I could build something like a Star Trek Computer.
Just think this 5 or 20 years further and its clear that these models will be better, relevant better than today. You will (if still needed) be able to stand in a VR world and talk to a computer and it will understand you well enough and it will be able to generate what ever you want.
Of course we still need to solve a lot more issues but honestly, before ChatGPT it felt like we solved software but it was not clear how it will continue. There was something missing.
And the way we build out compute, can be a milestone for material science, pharma, biochemistry etc.
"No AI" come on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_bitcoi...
Also were not building out compute in any meaningful way, theres only actually been a couple of fundamental advancements to how we understand NN on a fundamental level, whats really changed is theres now a few companies with enough resources to throw an ungodly amount of compute power at a clearly already plateauing line of tech. To the detriment to every other opportunity.
All this compute can also be used for other neural networks like finding new materials or drugs etc.
But what i meant was, that the outcry against AI is so much louder than bitcoin. The argument was brought up for sure but it was ignored plenty. No one forbid a company to restart a gas power plant in NYC to JUST burn it for bitcoin.
"Are you yes or no on Internet?"
"Are you yes or no on electricity?"
"Are you yes or no on fire?"
Give me a frickin break. Absolute trash.
Edit: I was pleasantly surprised to see that they don't add any tracking cookies from what I can tell, regardless of how you "vote". Still feels rather tasteless.
"No AI" means you're against using AI for anything, and oh by the way that includes all technology previously identified as AI, including various search, pathfinding, scheduling, and planning techniques; rule-based systems; logic programming; knowledge representaion; clustering; computer vision; and robotic control. If you're in the "No AI" camp, you need to immediately reformat your hard disk and then microwave your computer, or risk being branded a traitor.
And no, there is no middle ground. Pick a side!
/s
So obviously I voted "No", because that's closer to what I do, than "Yes". I can imagine lots of the "No" votes are like this.
