Rejoice, merry cybercave dwellers! Another slobbering tide of AI news awaits you! It’s like the remains of overprocessed dog food that becomes an unidentifiable repulsive mess when exposed to oxygen. It’s the staleness of it that makes all the difference.
If you happen to be able to ignore the fact that most of the crud being published is recycled 1950s science fiction, it’s almost interesting. Actually, it’s largely about delivering an acceptable image of AI to cater to the general ignorance and biases.
Despite that, some actual news sneaks in sometimes. Meta’s new open source AI is news. Open source means there’s now a technical benchmark. Ancient readers may remember when open source was an example of the democratization of information.
That hasn’t been happening with AI. The Gollum-like finance noises have prevented and shouted down any real objectivity in terms of the social values of AI.
Who knows? AI might be useful for people, too. Don’t hold your breath waiting to find out.
Democracy is also something people talk about rather than do anything about. So, it and AI have something in common.
Meta, which is now the default party in conspiracy theories with all those communist rocks and trees and things, is an unlikely contributor to democracy. What are they up to? Do they want to find the recipe for your gravel stew? …Or maybe they just wanted to create a useful platform?
Probably not. This is where a new AI option meets the dripping tap of AI information and culture. In all industries, speculation and paranoia fodder are the norm. Consider the games industry, where AI is “already taking jobs away from developers”. This was and is 100% inevitable.
People are screaming about the overproduction in video games, the cookie-cutter graphics, and massive multi-year development issues. AI can return game design to cost-effectiveness and let loose the people who design good games again.
What’s needed is the repositioning of devs to do valuable work without the ditch-digging. The whole issue is a spreadsheet-based version of games vs games worth playing. AI is the best solution, but not based on wasting the skills of people who know what they’re doing and why they’re doing it.
This disgusting spectacle applies to other AI roles. “Gen AI is coming for remote workers first” is a case in point. As you may remember, remote work, which saves employers thousands of dollars per hour, is now a no-no. As usual, the most cost-effective way of doing anything is the one you refuse to use. You refuse to use it in the name of cost-effectiveness. A problem solved is thus an old problem recreated, according to this moronic thinking.
The pattern continues with AI as the problem that’s solving the problem that’s creating the problems, plural. You have to admire the total inability of so many experts to see the contradictions in nearly every statement they make.
If you ask these guys “Would you like to make a few billion dollars”, the answer is likely to be “No.” Remember, whatever the issues with AI, it’s your money at risk of being murdered by this whacko way of doing business.
This is the culture being created by AI babble. The dribbling sycophancy of biz talk has grafted itself onto the ignorance of AI. Most people don’t even know what AI is, or how it’s developed, and have never done much more than accept this drivel at face value.
Others see it differently and the scepticism is based on practical considerations. If, like me, you do proprietary work in various media, you may not trust built-in third-party access.
You need to know who or what can intrude on work that needs to be private. You don’t want to be charitable with what may be valuable IP. To be fair, that issue is at least getting mentioned by AI platforms. That’s not quite good enough. That level of security needs to be trustworthy, not just rhetorical.
Can we kindly get some hard info on the major issues? Meanwhile, “news sources”, the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders you are definitely not. A dripping tap isn’t much of a substitute.
___________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
