this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
279 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
84768 readers
3116 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My only complaint here is that there is a lot of very, very valid use cases for "AI" specifically "Agentic AI".
We (including myself) may not like a lot of those uses because it devalues my fellow workers but it does not change the fact that it works.
The problem is everyone needs to be so goddamn polarizing and god forbid we have a mature honest discussion about the tools being built and how they are changing society as we know it.
We should be discussing and pushing for UBI across the world for decades now as youth unemployment is already at dangerous levels in continents like Africa (lol of course we don't care because black people) but no instead we have asshats pushing a narrative of "AI bad". It's not. It has many purposes. Smarter people know this and it's why it isn't going away and the train is not going to stop if you don't pull your head out of your ass.
/rant
I can't wait to dip out of society and find somewhere in the middle of nowhere to live a quiet life with minimal technology in my life. I'm done with all of you. I stand by what I've said to my mum many times over the years. I hate people. I love persons.
UBI makes sense even without an employment apocalypse. Flat tax (simple tax, everybody everywhere pays the same tax rate for everything all the time) has one basic flaw: it's regressive, the poor need a certain amount of money just to live, the rich have that well in hand even with their taxes... UBI fixes that, without complicating the tax code, without complicated "needs based benefit tests" etc. Maybe some of the population needs special handling, SNAP cards for nutritional food, etc. but in my view the vast majority do not - take care of the majority, treat them equally with the simplest rules imaginable, then when you hit special case addicts who can't be trusted with cash because they'll spend it all on their vice and have none left for housing or food: A) we all know they aren't needy because everyone gets UBI - so obviously there's another problem and B) don't give them cash, give them the food and housing vouchers instead.
Your fellow workers who are currently being devalued by AI need to get off their asses and figure out how they can provide OTHER value that AI isn't undercutting their salary costs on. This has been a slow train rolling at us for a few years now, I ignored it until 12 months ago, even 12 months ago it clearly couldn't replace me but, it was also obvious that it was improving quickly, and there were "simple tricks" that made it work dramatically better.
... everything. Seems like that's part of the basic debate process, from the Scopes Monkey Trial back through Gallileo to The Athenian Debate on Mytilene (427 BCE) and beyond.
Recorded by Thucydides, Cleon argued for the total extermination of all adult male citizens of a rebellious city to project absolute strength. Diodotus argued from a position of pragmatic mercy, highlighting the extreme ideological shifts in classical democracy during wartime.
The list of valid use cases for AI is bound by "what is the worst possible consequence of a mistake done here", because the statistical distribution of mistakes in terms of severity of consequences of things like Agentic AI is uniform (meaning, they're just as likely to do the worst mistakes with the nastiest consequences as they are doing the smallest mistakes), which it is not the case with humans who make more of an effort and give more attention to avoiding catastrophic mistakes and also have a "this is stupid" (i.e. don't put glue in pizza, don't tell a suicidal person to kill themselves) recognition capability which also stops a lot of the nastiest mistakes.
This is something which is not noticeable to most people because most people don't have deep enough process experience in at least one expert domain and process analysis experience, to upfront recognized anything beyond the "in your face" elements of using AI (or using anything, really) in a process.
Very few people would think "what's the risk profile for this business of giving this thing these responsabilities".
So they seriously overestimate what are valid use cases for AI, something that the hype around it also pushes for: not a single AI vendor will ever mention just "error distribution" or anything close to it.
Obviously, when the thing blows up catastrophically by doing something which for a human is "obviously a bad idea", THEN people recognized that AI is unsuitable for that, but by then its often too late.
(Easy example: lawyers using AI to make submissions to the Court and ending up disbarred because those submissions "quoted" invented case law).
So I don't expect Agentic AI to fuck society up by taking a large fraction of the jobs, I expect Agentic AI to fuck society up by an accumulation over time of random catastrophic mistakes that kill people and collapse otherwise stable companies, mistakes that humans in such positions would never do or at least be way less likely to do.
It's going to be akin to death by cummulative poisoning.
Trust where trust is earned. Unfortunately, our leadership isn't particularly trustworthy.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/carl-icahn-once-said-boards-173021236.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/16/icahn-too-many-companies-run-by-morons.html
These CEOs ensure no one smarter than them gets promoted. He said, “[The CEO] would never have anyone underneath him as his assistant that’s brighter than he is because that might constitute a threat. So, therefore, with many exceptions, we have CEOs becoming dumber and dumber and dumber.”
He first said those things over 20 years ago, and they're more true today than ever.
Agree and despite what it may seem like it really is gradual right now. What people are avoiding (god the C level discussions I have been witness to is mindblowing) is the long term damage of their choices today.
The amount of times I have heard executive talks with "you know we both have kids around the same age what do you see this doing?" And they always wrap it with something positive. These fuckers most likely have their kids in private schools, not to mention their kids have all the connections these fucking parents can afford them.
In short the execs making the decisions have their heads equally shoved so far up their own asses they are ignoring the problems on the horizon.
The French monarchy’s isolation at the Palace of Versailles completely detached them from the starving Parisian population. While the peasantry faced severe bread shortages and crippling taxes, the court engaged in lavish spending and performative peasant simulation.
The Disconnect: Marie Antoinette built Hameau de la Reine, a rustic model village where she dressed as a milkmaid to play at peasant life.
The Reality: Real peasants were eating grass due to catastrophic harvests and systemic financial ruin.4
Its not because humans make those mistakes all the time. It doesn't need to be %100, it just needs to be like 95% to be better than humans
When human makes a mistake, they learn, they continue to enrich humanity, they make a blueprint how not to make the same mistake again, if not for humanity, but at least for themselves. It also fuels some creativity so one mistake might lead to something good later.
When a mistake generator makes a mistake, it's just another mistake in a pile of mistakes that only worsen our collective human experience.
Very few humans do that. Vast majority is far more sloppy than any AI slop I've ever seen.
Don't fall into this nihilistic bullshit, if humans weren't capable of learning we wouldn't be here in the first place. This narrative isn't true and doesn't help. It's all invented by religions of old to better control humanity, and it wasn't true then and isn't true now
Do bees learn? Like how to deal with mites? Or do they just die off every 45 days and only get replaced by bees who accidentally happen to be a little better at dealing with mites?
I am not an expert on insectology or beeology, I don't actually know do they learn or not. An emergent entity of a hive seems to be learning better than the individual insect, but we're learning so much about them even now, I don't feel comfortable to make any speculations.
I know about mammals a bit more, and know that humans do learn, but the hive mind learning works worse than in hiving insects.
My point is that for Agentic AI mistakes with catastrophic consequences are just as likelly as minor mistakes, which is not the case for people because humans can spot the "obviously stupid" or "obviously dangerous", plus they make more of an effort to avoid mistakes that can have very bad consequences, so they tend to make catastrophic mistakes will less than minor mistakes.
People giving psychological advice are incredibly unlikely to tell suicidal people to "kill yourself", those giving food recipes are incredibly unlikely to say that pizza should have glue on top or those deploying software in Production are incredibly unlikely to delete the whole fucking Production environment including backups.
So even if the total rate of mistakes of an an Agentic AI was less than a human, its rate of catastropic mistakes would still be much higher than a human.
This is however not obvious unless one actually analises the risk profile of using Agentic AI in a specific place in a specific process, a skill very few people have plus it requires information about and/or understanding of Agentic AI which itself very few people have and the AI vendors activelly do not want people to have.
So you end up with an e-mail fluffing and defluffing machine being used to summarize and store medical info about patients and then down the line somebody gets given something that kills them because the data on file had a critical mistake.
This is why I said that its "the worst possible consequence of a mistake done here" that limit Agentic AI suitability: because generally you're going to have way more catastrophic mistakes with an AI that you will even with even an human with no domain experience.
That's just not even true. People with no experience are going to fuck shit up completely. We have a human president and look where that's getting us.
Even people with zero experience in counseling don't tell a person who is thinking of committing suicide to "kill themselves" and even those with zero culinary experience don't tell others they're supposed to put glue on top pizza when you're making it.
To do that a human needs not just have zero experience but actually have no common sense whatsoever.
Further, even with such people, it's only if they've been given the tools to do things with a huge impact that it becomes a problem: that's pretty much "child with a loaded gun" situations.
The number of humans that inept given such power is minuscule (pretty much just children given loaded guns), whilst every single Agentic AI out there is that stupid and they're currently being given "loaded guns" all the time.
The problem is exactly that Agentic AIs are being given adult responsibilities whilst having the common sense and reasoning abilities of a small child.
Hey, the feeling is mutual, all of us would also like it if you fuck off to the middle of nowhere. Don't forget to take all your "useful technology" with you while you're at it.