this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2026
1013 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
88098 readers
3575 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It sure is useful at making my boss post a lot of conflicting things because AI can’t understand context at all. “Force multiplier” doesn’t mean it’s multiplying good things. It can just as easily multiply nonsense.
Like any tool, the user plays a key role in the quality of the output.
Not really. The output of LLMs is massively increased global warming, increased prices of goods and services, decreased number of jobs, increased numbers of bugs in software, massive increase in wealth migration from poor to the rich, and increased surveillance. None of that has to do with the quality of the users. Just using it at all results in all of those things.
You're confused, those things are the outputs out late-stage capitalism.
Both can be true.
Usually id agree but im not sure that really applies here.
I'd understand if these tools were small scale, eco-friendly, ethically developped and trained, and owned by the workers.
Considering most LLM and AI/AI-adjacent tools used are large-scale tools created and owned by big greedy corporations, I'd say the tools themselves are a product of late stage capitalism, thus the bad results they produce are results of simultaneoulsly :
You started by saying they produce the issues, but are now explaining what I said above, that they are a product of upstream social issues.
Is this worth discussing.
Reminder of my only two previous comments in this topic:
and
End of the reminder.
Your answer to that was:
What motivated my answer is:
Most events have multiple causes and multiple consequences. All of them can also interfere with each other. They can form retroaction loops too.
What I was explicitely saying is:
These tools were created and specialised for late-stage capitalism goals. There will be some common consequences, including bad ones, between usage by the big corpos and usage by random persons, whatever their skills. That's why I said that both these takes are true:
and
It seems that we disagree about my view, but don't attribute to me shit I didn't say to fight this false argument.
So...
Apparently no, at least not when you oversimplify causality and misrepresent what I said. Still worth argumenting for others to have more arguments to weight.
Now, this discussion looks to me like the stupid "debate" around "guns kill people" VS "guns don't kill, only the people using them do" in the specific context of gun control laws.
And also, fuck capitalism, and other systems of exploitation, oppression, domination.
Yeah but it’s also just kind of a shitty tool.
Thats a take, but if you pair that sentiment with what I just said it paints a funny picture.
Like if I went to the store and bought a cheap hammer and it breaks after a few swings it’s a shitty tool. No matter my expertise with said tool.
That analogy only works if the AI literally stops functioning after a few uses.
A better comparison would be a tool that performs badly when used for the wrong job or by someone who doesn't know its limitations.
“Sometimes produces bad output” isn't the same thing as “shitty tool.”
Which just feeds back into what I've already said. Shall we go around again?