this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
220 points (81.2% liked)

Technology

88146 readers
3439 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm not an AI techie and I'm not well educated on LLMs/AI in general. The issue I'm having is the dichotomy between how people talk about it. I've heard completely opposite ends of the spectrum. From AI is quickly becoming advanced enough to threaten human society, all the way to its a glorified dictionary/search engine that can't really do much of anything. I know Lemmy has a steep anti-AI slant. But, can someone talk about this in a way I can wrap my head around why the divide seems so big?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FRYD@lemmy.blahaj.zone 50 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

Ed Zitron’s podcast “Better Offline” recently talked about this. There is a small tech community called the Rationalists who believe AI super intelligence is inevitable and it will either accelerate humanity to new heights or kill off the species. These rationalists are actually a very prominent faction within tech and the AI industry. Apparently the language used within top AI firms is largely about the immense danger posed by AI super intelligence if any other group or company were to achieve it first. This creates an echo chamber that makes the people in the industry kind of lose their mind and misinterpret the capability of LLMs.

Everyone outside that faction recognizes that LLMs are just unreliable cloud software with limited use cases and that there’s no evidence LLMs could actually lead to any kind of intelligence.

Edit: Please, someone stop me from commenting on an AI post next time I’m tempted. I’m so tired of people replying, arguing with opinions I don’t have, based entirely around a hypothetical technology that doesn’t exist yet. LLMs make slop. Thats it. They hacked a company after weeks of 100s of instances being run, using old exploits published online. San Francisco will be underwater from climate change before LLMs can do anything more.

[–] HumbleExaggeration@feddit.org 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

My Problem is: Even if your take on AI is true, we give an unreliable piece of software access to the internet and more and more systems and infrastructure. Even if it is not a malicious AI, it can be so unreliable, it might kill us by incompetence. a Sme can be said about some presidents...

[–] Mondez@lemdro.id 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It won't kill us as a species, but its use may lead to disasters that were unintended and didn't need to happen. Much of the regulation in other industries is due to that kind of thing happening. Worse, the companies making them are trying to get regulation to curtail other parties development for economic advantage rather than regulation on use which will steer the entire industry.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 2 days ago

disasters that were unintended and didn’t need to happen.

As you say, every "scientifically based" industrial innovation / breakthrough has had the potential to cause new kinds of mayhem, and most of them did to some degree or another. Burning rivers and CO2 overload in the atmosphere spring to mind, but industrial "accidents" are part and parcel of industrial activity, always have been.

[–] FRYD@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

LLMs are not intelligent. They lack morals, knowledge, and intent. The only remote risk of extermination is if a company with absolute impunity and endless resources told an LLM to hack the nuclear weapons and if knowledge of how to do that was already published online and processed as training data.

LLMs cannot do anything new, they can only regurgitate information thats already been stolen.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago

The only remote risk of extermination is if a company with absolute impunity and endless resources told an LLM to hack the nuclear weapons

Absolutely a huge risk.

and if knowledge of how to do that was already published online and processed as training data.

extremely naive to not understand existing capabilities of 100s of probings and planning based on probings, and multiple strategies, in a swarm working towards a goal.

Still to your first point, the organizations with the budget and impunity, seeking the most powerful tools, are then the ones who will use them for evil, at expense of others, power maximization.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or if the military put an LLM in charge of nuclear weapons. But surely nobody would be stupid enough to do that!

[–] No1@aussie.zone 1 points 21 hours ago

"And that's why today I'm signing into law the Trump Nuclear Act. Some say it's the greatest law of all time. Very smart people, even smarter AI. Elon tells me this will save billions, and I'm going to increase my dividend, let's call it the 'Nucular Peace Dividend' to honor Bush, I don't remember which one used to say 'Nucular', but I always liked that guy, and it made me think up how to say Chayyyyna.

CNN get out!"

[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

That is simply counter-factual. LLMs can absolutely do things that have not been published before, and they can access knowledge that is not in their training data through RAG. Intelligence is debatable, but reasoning models can reliably imitate "thinking" to a degree, and recursive self-improvement might lead to an autonomous advancement of intelligence. That LLMs allegedly "only regurgitate information" is simply wrong.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're confusing morals, knowledge, intent, and intelligence with capability. An atomic bomb has no will of its own either.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

idk, every atom bomb I've met has one purpose.....

An atom bomb has no will of its own either.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 2 days ago

can be so unreliable, it might kill us by incompetence.

Same can be said of Homer Simpson manning the console at a nuclear power plant.

AI is a tool, irresponsible use of a tool is... irresponsible. Just like people puttting "not-self-driving" cars into "supervised driving assistance mode" and taking a nap at the wheel at 80mph.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Aren't they called TESCREALists or something? It's like a mish-mash of pop culture and pseudo intellectual BS

[–] firecoals@bark.lgbt 1 points 2 days ago

@FRYD @Return_of_Chippy there are also some exelent behind the bastarda aboit them too

[–] thegarbagebird@theblower.au 1 points 2 days ago

@FRYD @Return_of_Chippy i love that the logic and reason guys’ next evolution is even less tethered to either

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 2 days ago

either accelerate humanity to new heights or kill off the species

Arguably those are two ways of describing the same event.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

any kind of intelligence

A photocell that turns on a streetlamp after sundown, or when a dark cloud passes over the sun, is a kind of intelligence.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Got it. So plants are intelligent.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago

You're starting to catch on...