From his body language (look at his feet) and speech patterns it sure feels like he's just lying his ass off.
Mildly Infuriating
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that. Please post actually infuriating posts to !actually_infuriating@lemmy.world
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating. If your post better fits !Actually_Infuriating put it there.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, but attribution is not required in any way. No links to Reddit in post body
-If you would like to provide a source link, do so in the comments but not in the post body.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
Please don't start trying to analyze people's body language. It's not a real thing, crossing your legs isn't some consistent signal of anything.
What crossing his legs?
He's literally fidgeting with his feet and pretty much stammering whilst saying that AI has created more jobs.
I'm actually surprised a guy with the experience he must have in public speech isn't good at hiding discomfort.
Guess he's okay with the UBI future. He'll be paying all of us.
The problem is he should, but he definitely won't.
Why listen to a guy with a micro soft?
poor BILL, trying to distract people from him being with epstein and giving his wife an std, notice how all the news about his philantrophy stopped immediately after all this news came out. thats why thought his "charities" are just scams the whole time.
Yeah really. Also buying up farmland.
The video where he gets asked about Jeffrey, the micro expressions, eyes all over the place, fidgeting, tonal changes, stammering, indirectly stating being involved by bringing up slight details without being asked directly about them, etc--it's easier to watch the video. He lost his cool so fast it makes Clinton look like a smooth criminal.
This depends on:
- Inference for tasks being cheaper than human labor. Probably possible in areas where labor costs are really, really high, but those are also the areas where mistakes have severe consequences, and even a model that fulfills every request with 95% accuracy is NOT enough in these - and even the 95% are illusory if we look at real life data (no, synthetic tests do not count)
- Human acceptance. This is where i see all of this falling apart. If you replace your consumer facing departments with AI, there's a large amount of people who will do a lot to stay away from you.
A friend who’d just bought a new car spent 10 min on the phone with Geico trying to speak to a human. Their Sam’s Cola version of ChatGPT convinced me to never consider them for insurance. It was fuuuucked.
In the end If you don’t have workers you don’t have consumers.
That, and they are actively destroying the tax base of countries too.
Isn't this the guy who tried to slip his wife STD medicine because he had sex and caught something from (allegedly underage) Russian prostitutes on Epstein Island?
That doesn't mean he's wrong about AI though.
But, they are also controlling the narrative by playing good cop bad cop on this subject. So he’s not telling the truth, either.
Whatever it was it was bad enough for his wife to divorce him
bill asked EPSTEIN how to sneak it into his wife without her noticing. he probably couldnt do it because abx has to be properly prescribed depending on the type of bacteria, and for how long. its not like single pill cures it once and all.
"allegedly underage" oh sure, ole Willy Gates fucked Epstein's old lady slaves. Which he was known for.
I don't understand what people have against Al. I thought we all loved Al. Al is the coolest. A little weird, but I mean, that's Al's appeal.

I still can't decide if these people are delusional or I am.
Every single time I use an LLM it fucking "lies" to me or otherwise completely fails at the task. The people talking like this seem to me like they've never actually used it, or haven't actually vetted the accuracy (like most AI users).
Maybe I'm just not using the "good stuff". Or I'm not imaginative enough to foresee a near future where these problems are actually corrected and it becomes trustworthy.
I've never been so torn by a technological prediction.
Yeah, every time I say this to someone they say it's fine when they use it because they pay for the latest expensive model. Except they've been saying that for the last couple of years, so I guess they were lying back then...?
It's a big club and you ain't in it. They have to sell it until the end and this guy is on the outs and not getting invited to the "good" yacht parties at the moment.
The judgement you are considering from this person is the same judgement (and morality) that thought it was fine to be a close and frequent associate of jeffrey epstein.
Bill gates is a desperate, broken man. He is the illusion of a man you once admired vaguely and that is the only remaining currency he holds that matters to him. The best thing about bill is the wife who left him.
Generally I've found that:
If the facts are painfully obvious from a simple web search, then GenAI has a decent chance of getting it right. This can be useful if you can't recall any "key" words well and the GenAI can craft several searches and get there.
However, if it does mess up the facts, the result looks superficially the same as "correct". So while it can give accurate data, you always have to double check. This can still be useful, as finding the right search terms can be a decent help.
In coding, sometimes in some situations, you can have requirements that are absolutely testable, and thus you can have the models retry and retry until it works. This isn't always feasible. Even when it seems feasible, you may screw up the criteria, or the GenAI when enough freedom disables a probablematic test rather than solve it, and it likely will generate code that's not really fit to modify. There are a lot of situations where this is useful, but it is infuriating that non technical people and even some low skill technical people assume this is always the case.
Then when you get away from facts mattering, it gets "better". Example, someone jokingly asked for one to "make gta6". After a while it came back with a GTA 1 clone. Lots of people were impressed, because whatever it did could be considered a success even as it obviously didn't match the expectation. The operators also like to GenAI some webcomic, where it is a fiction. They almost always didn't have any interesting thought going in so they tend to be crap, but "correctness" didn't matter.
Of course, also making fakes. Supreme case where looking correct matters but being factually correct does not matter at all. GenAI above all else "seems" correct.
I'm curious what you are using. The free versions of chatgpt have been like that for me, but even Gemini flash with extended thinking, also free for a while longer, is giving me pretty reliable results as long as there training data out there to derive an answer from. The higher (paid) Claude models will one shot most coding tasks.
I mean as long as the coding tasks are simple, and seeded with enough context, then sure. As in "create tinder clone works", but I still have to check the output in my company codebase. We are leveraging llms a lot for code writing, full agentic pipelines, loops, all the shiny new approaches.
The outcomes in all cases are still mediocre or below.
We have twice as many open prod bugs as a year ago.
I've not yet fucked with Claude. I don't want to pay for it, and I really don't like the surveillance aspect of these centralized systems. Mostly I'm using Gemini, whatever DDG had in their search results, and local models I've been fiddling with (like Qwen3.8 right now).
All more or less garbage once I get into the details of anything on the edge of my expertise.
Claude can one shot tasks until you get a larger system then it completely shits itself. These models are nothing more than autocomplete, and they can’t hold large systems in their heads. Anthropic literally tried to rewrite all of bun using Claude, they said they did it and yet it still hasn’t released six months later.
Transcript:
Interviewer: So tell me about why you think AI really will take jobs away from human beings at a significant scale.
Bill Gates: Yeah, so there's no doubt to date, AI has created more jobs than it's destroyed. The demand for the skill sets even just to build the data centers is very, very high. We have a, you know, a reasonably low unemployment rate.
The superiority of these systems is subject to a threshold where you have to believe that it's incredibly reliable. And if you're going to have your tele-sales or tele-support capability be AI-driven, you want to make sure that its accuracy is better than humans. And so the only profession we've truly crossed over that threshold is coding. And even there, I know a lot of people who are, you know, kind of stuck in the past and, you know, don't want to use the AI for coding. But managers of coders get that most applications can be developed very inexpensively.
We will, in the next few years, cross over those thresholds for accounting, legal work, tele-sales, tele-support where 24 hours a day in every language with infinite trivia capability and no urgency, you know, so you look at the AI nurse and their several companies. They have perfect memory.
[Interviewer briefly clarifies something here, I removed this part because the autotranscription didn't handle it well]
You know, you go to San Francisco and ask people, do you rather ride in a Waymo or rather ride with the human driver? Go ask people in the UK who use limbic for mental health support. You know, so the notion that just the market demand preference for driving or the nurse, you know, or even the person on the phone will favor humans. That's a quality threshold which will be passed through, you know, if say insurance companies are still doing human claims, medical claims, which is a very AI-capable task, then a competitor who has very few human employees will come in and change the pricing model for that industry.
I think robot customer support will always suck because whatever it is you need from the company, they don't actually want to bother with you. Don't think I've ever made a phone call because I needed "trivia capability". It won't be good because they won't give it access or authority to actually help anyone.
He repeats the "better than humans at coding" which is super situational. Executives got so used to "code is code" mentality they can't seem to understand that just because they can prompt up straightforward apps and other folks have done stunts like "make a knock off of this compiler" does not mean it's just better than people.
Also very bizarre to say they have perfect memory, they are pretty spotty at that.
On the matter of support, it will generally always such because it's rigged for the company in all matters where helping the customer would go against the company's interests. Has been a long time. Why pay warranty when you can make it so painful they will give up?
Bill didn’t say anything. Prices won’t go down because AI replaced humans. If anything they will rise, as they are.
Fuck this pedophile pirate trying to stay relevant and respectable. Who the fuck is saying that AI will create more jobs??
We didn't need Bill Gates to tell us this.
There's a whole band of people who only listen to rich people. Because "they're rich because they're genius" mentality
Oh hey both of these guys can get a data center shoved up their asses sideways
My idiotic not-even-briefly-thought-through prediction:
- LLM systems can't do anything reliably, but they can do it cheaply, so 'decision makers' contract out LLM based systems to handle customer support/service and slap a disclaimer on it. You can pay for premium support by a person. Your PA still has to wait on hold to talk to this person. If you can't afford a PA, you can't afford the premium service.
- It's so much cheaper than having real people, not because it's cheap, but because now you have infinitely scalable team size with no downtime, no managers, no benefits, or other ancillary costs. Quality goes down. Unit economics improve.
- Companies that don't jump on the LLM train will be more expensive because they have to have real people, which are better on almost every metric, but expensive to maintainne. No one will be able to afford the premium service of having someone who actually has the ability to do anything, so they will lose customer base, so they'll get more expensive, so they'll lose customer base, so they... Repeat until they are bought out by their competitors or are a luxury brand charging fifty billionaires whatever they feel like because the check is blank.
- The market polarizes. Everything is either barely affordable crap or expensive luxury service. No one is happy, but 'profit' is maximised. The American health insurance company becomes the model for everything.
- It can't even do it cheaply. The current API prices are far too low for inference providers to survive long term, because not only are they currently deep in the red on inference itself, the hardware this stuff runs on has a very limited lifetime of a few years, means you have to replace the most expensive parts the most (pretty much different than most things - normally the really cheap stuff has to be replaced regularily, which makes a lot more sense). These costs do not even include the massive bill for training new models, which they all have to do to make sure to not fall behind.
- See the first point, in combination that many areas are not tolerant to high error rates - noone hires a lawyer that makes grave mistakes on the regular, and i refuse to see a doctor that messes up 20% of their diagnoses.
- Anyone not jumping on the train will be safe when the inevitable moment comes where inference providers start raising prices massively to get into the black, everyone else will be shafted because of the loss of institutional knowledge due to laying off their human staff.
- on that i agree, at least for the US.