![It’s just great marketing [Smooth Dunk]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/38712211-1ccc-4657-a843-68432e5ca069.jpeg){kind=link}
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/53077671
Smooth Dunk | Bluesky
Transcript
3 panel comic
Panel 1: Red Guy in t-shirt is sitting at a desk being interviewed. He says “AI is going to kill us all”
Panel 2: Interviewer looking directly into camera, says “Well, we’ve heard from the anti-Ai guy. Now let’s hear from the CEO of AI
Panel 3: Wide shot revealing the second interviewee looking slightly confused. He says “I’m the Anti-AI guy”
“AI is going to kill us all” is a pro-AI position and I’m sick of people falling for it.
The anti-AI position is “AI is a marketing term and isn’t actually real”
Is calling “AI” (llms) a market disruptor even though it’s not actually AI a pro or anti position?
Im not in favor at all of what’s happening here, but i’m trying to understand where everyone is drawing the line
LLMs are productivity software that have some potential to be useful in some industries. The main thing they’re disrupting is the preexisting status of copyright protections and intellectual property; they’re really good at plagiarism, especially in fields like programming and mathematics, in ways that are actually potentially extremely useful but are also mostly untested in court and we have no idea how that’s going to play out. Also? Really potent malware, able to augment human hackers to ridiculous degrees.
But it’s not intelligent. That’s just marketing.
The malware angle has had me losing sleep, not sure from an infosec point how we could keep up without using the same tech
I’m not even sure really good device hardening is enough because of that reverse engineering angle
Disconnecting from the internet will always be an option.
Definitely ruins the dreams of having an “internet of things” where all of our devices are connected to the internet, though.
IMO those dreams were ruined when IoT devices started demanding connection to the manufacturer’s servers.