Society/Culture AI - The SRP Artificial Intelligence Thread

[hamohawk1]

I’m probably more optimistic than worried, but only if people stay clear-eyed about what AI actually is.

To me, AI is a tool, not a replacement for judgement. In work, school, or even analysis, it can speed things up enormously, but it can also make bad thinking look polished. That’s probably the biggest risk. Not that AI gives answers, but that people stop checking whether the answers make sense.

In education, I think the challenge is similar. If students use it to skip learning, it’s a problem. If they use it to test ideas, debug mistakes, or understand something from another angle, it could be genuinely valuable.

The same applies to jobs. Some roles will change, some tasks will disappear, and new ones will appear. But the people who can combine AI with actual domain knowledge will probably be in the strongest position.

So I’m not anti-AI at all. I just think the important bit is keeping the human part in the loop: judgement, ethics, accountability, and a bit of common sense.

For context, I have been using it to code stats with Rstudio and what started out as a blind use tool lead to a lot of frustration when I didn't understand the code, or I woke up not understanding where I was. I then used AI as a more structured tool first by drawing up a plan of what I wanted, and then making sure my layout, folder, file and naming conventions were consistent. Now I'm finding myself in more control of what I'm doing without AI doimg the heavy lifting.

I think its a mistake for people to think AI is a do it all tool. All of the ideas Ive implememted are mine and I refused to let AI guide me away from them

Enjoying reading the discourse on this thread, some really measured responses.

I've bolded the section of where i am unsure of the implication. at the very least it swallows jobs, particularly in admin side of things. These jobs wouldve got significantly more efficient with the computer (where lossess wouldve previously occured) to now that a lot of this stuff should be automated.

Therefore, the big question is what is done with an increased pool of society for which there simply is no jobs available/ finite employment. Its really not something we've had, at least in an australian context for a long time.

 

[JHF1870]

Enjoying reading the discourse on this thread, some really measured responses.

I've bolded the section of where i am unsure of the implication. at the very least it swallows jobs, particularly in admin side of things. These jobs wouldve got significantly more efficient with the computer (where lossess wouldve previously occured) to now that a lot of this stuff should be automated.

Therefore, the big question is what is done with an increased pool of society for which there simply is no jobs available/ finite employment. Its really not something we've had, at least in an australian context for a long time.

Its only a matter of time in my company given current restructuring that they will AI purchase orders, HR and admin work. I do wonder about information security and errors

 

[Gralin]

I would never have been able to do what I did with my stats without spending 6 to 12 months learning it. In the beginning I didnt understand the processes but now I have my scripts, I can do it all myself and understand the processes.

In terms of crappy ideas lauded by AI Ive been careful to understand my ideas independent of AI. AI is almost always agreeable Ive tested it with contradictory results.

im at the gym so Ill read your post in more detail when home. I don't disagree with some of the points made and appreciate your opinions.

Instant gratification and convenience are two ways it gets you

Along with ego massaging as you mentioned

You go to the gym so you understand the idea of earned gains and no shortcuts

Building true skills takes time, real progress takes time

But we're all programmed to look for the fast fix

 

[peetoo]

What happens when ai is on both sides of b2b dealings? It won’t be building better PowerPoints for sure

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I’m probably more optimistic than worried, but only if people stay clear-eyed about what AI actually is.

To me, AI is a tool, not a replacement for judgement. In work, school, or even analysis, it can speed things up enormously, but it can also make bad thinking look polished. That’s probably the biggest risk. Not that AI gives answers, but that people stop checking whether the answers make sense.

A lot of people have already stopped checking, especially conservatives. I've lost count of the number of conservatives I've seen online who just screenshot whatever hallucination Gemini has put into its summary response, post it and consider it to be irrefutable evidence for whatever view they want to believe today. No curiosity, no further reading, no checking, they've totally outsourced their brains to AI.

 

[RCAB]

A lot of people have already stopped checking, especially conservatives. I've lost count of the number of conservatives I've seen online who just screenshot whatever hallucination Gemini has put into its summary response, post it and consider it to be irrefutable evidence for whatever view they want to believe today. No curiosity, no further reading, no checking, they've totally outsourced their brains to AI.

You're assuming they had a well functioning brain.. hmm

 

[Gethelred]

A lot of people have already stopped checking, especially conservatives. I've lost count of the number of conservatives I've seen online who just screenshot whatever hallucination Gemini has put into its summary response, post it and consider it to be irrefutable evidence for whatever view they want to believe today. No curiosity, no further reading, no checking, they've totally outsourced their brains to AI.

This is fair dinkum how we get to Idiocracy.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

You're assuming they had a well functioning brain.. hmm

Did I? I feel like I just noted they've outsourced all thinking to AI instead of even trying, however capable their brains are.

 

[peetoo]

One nation and coalition would be the easiest personas to fake

 

[Seeds]

A lot of people have already stopped checking, especially conservatives. I've lost count of the number of conservatives I've seen online who just screenshot whatever hallucination Gemini has put into its summary response, post it and consider it to be irrefutable evidence for whatever view they want to believe today. No curiosity, no further reading, no checking, they've totally outsourced their brains to AI.

No one ever fact checked. Do you think people were fact checking before ai and social media? We relied on government regulation to ensure what we read in the media was true. We didnt fact check it outselves. Linking fact checking to using your brain is really odd. I guess no society ever used their brain then.

Its not the peoples job to fact check. No one has time for that. Its governments job to ensure ai and social media is up to standard to provding the truth when asked for it. And governments around the world are failing.

 

[Seeds]

Its becoming quite obvious the ai isnt going to lead to massive job losses. It cant replace most jobs other then in a few niche roles. Its a tool workers will use. Not a tool to replace them.

Unfortunately some ceos havent figured this out yet and will sack workers before realising they need to hire most of them back.

 

[Gralin]

Its becoming quite obvious the ai isnt going to lead to massive job losses. It cant replace most jobs other then in a few niche roles. Its a tool workers will use. Not a tool to replace them.

Unfortunately some ceos havent figured this out yet and will sack workers before realising they need to hire most of them back.

so AI isn't going to lead to massive job losses except where it leads to massive job losses?

 

[Seeds]

so AI isn't going to lead to massive job losses except where it leads to massive job losses?

You missed the hiring workers back part.

 

[Gralin]

You missed the hiring workers back part.

you missed the firing them in the first place part

pretending that part didn't happen is bog standard for you Seeds

the job losses are happening right now

the fact you think in the future they will be reversed doesn't change the fact that it is currently actually happening

 

[Millky95]

A lot of people have already stopped checking, especially conservatives. I've lost count of the number of conservatives I've seen online who just screenshot whatever hallucination Gemini has put into its summary response, post it and consider it to be irrefutable evidence for whatever view they want to believe today. No curiosity, no further reading, no checking, they've totally outsourced their brains to AI.

Obviously can't trust everything you see online but have seen screenshots of people asking their LLMs to respond to people's texts and messages.

Seen teachers putting in prompts into their assignments catching students out who just copy and paste

Also the way LLMs talk to you, building up your ego. The dumbest person you know is being told by a LLM that they are correct.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

No one ever fact checked. Do you think people were fact checking before ai and social media? We relied on government regulation to ensure what we read in the media was true. We didnt fact check it outselves. Linking fact checking to using your brain is really odd. I guess no society ever used their brain then.

I absolutely think that people who actually wanted to be informed would go to at least the minimum effort of spending half an hour on Google reading about the subject. That's not everyone, but it probably is the case for people who write things online that are actually worth reading.

Its not the peoples job to fact check. No one has time for that.

Yet they have the time to pontificate on topics they know three-fifths of f*** all about?

Its governments job to ensure ai and social media is up to standard to provding the truth when asked for it. And governments around the world are failing.

Would you like tighter government control of social media so that they can ensure that?

 

[Millky95]

I absolutely think that people who actually wanted to be informed would go to at least the minimum effort of spending half an hour on Google reading about the subject. That's not everyone, but it probably is the case for people who write things online that are actually worth reading.

Not a lot of effort to check two or three sources, making sure the URLs are from something semi legitimate (i.e. government page). People are completely skipping this step assuming the LLM does it for them

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Not a lot of effort to check two or three sources, making sure the URLs are from something semi legitimate (i.e. government page). People are completely skipping this step assuming the LLM does it for them

Like at minimum check the AIs linked sources. I was told in high school we'd get failed for citing Wikipedia as a source, but nothing stopped us going to the sources and further reading material linked on Wikipedia, reading those and citing from there. That's what AI should be, a starting point for further reading, not an authority on a subject in and of itself. But I suppose people get lazy.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

I work in a field that's heavily data reliant (research administration and assessment). I've recently noticed that once clean data that we work with is now getting muddied beyond all result (thanks Jack Dyer). We buy this data from private companies but the whole higher education sector is dependent on this data. Profiles for researchers are being merged when they shouldn't. The reason: poor AI. The AI models are matching names that are similar but obviously different. Current researchers are being credited with papers written over 90 years ago. I'm spotting researchers that are supposedly experts in dark matter physics as well as law.

My experience is the I in AI is very much overated and overstated.

 

[Seeds]

I absolutely think that people who actually wanted to be informed would go to at least the minimum effort of spending half an hour on Google reading about the subject. That's not everyone, but it probably is the case for people who write things online that are actually worth reading.


Yet they have the time to pontificate on topics they know three-fifths of f*** all about?


Would you like tighter government control of social media so that they can ensure that?

Yes i absolutely would like tighter government control. But rules based control with rules developed by public servants and reviewed indepedently as needs require. Not case by case determinations made by partisan politcians.

For people who want to become experts on certain topics and submit their own expert views in the public domain then yes i agree fact checking should be a requirement. However, the standard public who simply want to know more about certain phenomena shouldnt have to rely on fact checking. The ai companies and those who post social media content should be the ones doing the fact checking for them.

 

[Gethelred]

No one ever fact checked. Do you think people were fact checking before ai and social media? We relied on government regulation to ensure what we read in the media was true. We didnt fact check it outselves. Linking fact checking to using your brain is really odd. I guess no society ever used their brain then.

Its not the peoples job to fact check. No one has time for that. Its governments job to ensure ai and social media is up to standard to provding the truth when asked for it. And governments around the world are failing.

You mightn't have. I do.

 

[Gralin]

Yes i absolutely would like tighter government control. But rules based control with rules developed by public servants and reviewed indepedently as needs require. Not case by case determinations made by partisan politcians.

For people who want to become experts on certain topics and submit their own expert views in the public domain then yes i agree fact checking should be a requirement. However, the standard public who simply want to know more about certain phenomena shouldnt have to rely on fact checking. The ai companies and those who post social media content should be the ones doing the fact checking for them.

So you think we should trust the companies that profit off engagement with their products who have repeatedly broken laws to make money to do the right thing even though they've never ever done it before?

 

[RedOrWhite]

Like at minimum check the AIs linked sources. I was told in high school we'd get failed for citing Wikipedia as a source, but nothing stopped us going to the sources and further reading material linked on Wikipedia, reading those and citing from there. That's what AI should be, a starting point for further reading, not an authority on a subject in and of itself. But I suppose people get lazy.

Agree. Uni was also pretty strong on sources used in assignments.

The bolded is what I use AI for. And other small stuff like editing photos, videos and getting summaries of long YT videos and podcasts where applicable. Not as a sole authority on a topic or task as many seem to use it.

The job losses people are hinting at are significant too and shouldn't be downplayed.

 

[Millky95]

Agree. Uni was also pretty strong on sources used in assignments.

The bolded is what I use AI for. And other small stuff like with editing photos, videos and getting summaries of long YT videos and podcasts where applicable. Not as a sole authority on a topic or task as many seem to use it.

The job losses people are hinting at are significant too and shouldn't be downplayed.

I'm even more against it for any sort of art related activity, as someone who works in the art field. But I have seen some people ask their model to edit 1 part of the picture and it edits it, and something else in the picture that was fine. Like add plant to this picture of a house and suddenly the windows are circles instead of squares BUT there is also a plant

 

[RedOrWhite]

I'm even more against it for any sort of art related activity, as someone who works in the art field. But I have seen some people ask their model to edit 1 part of the picture and it edits it, and something else in the picture that was fine. Like add plant to this picture of a house and suddenly the windows are circles instead of squares BUT there is also a plant

That's fair enough. I don't endorse it as a tool to use as a substitute for authentic art or other nefarious reasons I've seen bandied around either.

On photo edits I was largely hinting at object removals. I was able to go back through my photos from my trips to Europe and Japan recently and was able to get rid of a bunch of randoms out of my photos lol. One time in London, I waited 10 minutes for a family to get out of the way of a perfect shot. There's not usually 10 minutes available to wait, so I find that feature useful. Or things like as you mention tweaking the colours, adding colour to black and white photos or the features that make your eyes look less weird lol, especially on nights out.