this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
519 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

75792 readers
2503 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 13 points 8 hours ago

Just look at who's in charge of the Senate, and ask yourself if they are to be trusted to do anything but lie, steal and carry out witch hunts.

As for LLMs, unless driving contact-centre customer satisfaction scores even further through the floor counts as an achievement, so far, all there's been has been a vast volume of hype and wasted energy, and very little to show for it, except for some highly constrained point solutions which aren't significant enough to make economic impact. Even then, the ROI is questionable.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

So they want to keep them terrified of losing their shitty, barely functioning status quo.

The reality is that these are the numbers the Republicans want , because it's the numbers their billionaire owners want. ChatGPT is just accidentally letting us know how they've poisoned the models.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 6 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Stop calling LLM AI. It creates false expectations.

[–] innermachine@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

The fact that "AI" training off other LLM slop produces worse and worse results is proof there is no "intelligence" going on just clever parroting.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 13 points 12 hours ago

Yes but got forbid those jobs be stolen by another country. Can’t have that.

[–] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

I.e., made up on the spot.

[–] DamnianWayne@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Well my AI says it will take 96 or 98 million jobs, depending on what you want it say and only for $5,000.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 30 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

LOLLLLLLLL that’s like a third of the US population. Probably half of the number currently employed. There’s no way in hell this useless garbage will take 1/3 to 1/2 of all jobs. Companies that do this will go out of business fast.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 hours ago

You can tell how competent someone is at something by how good they think AI is at that thing.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

I think the fad will die down a bit, when companies figure out that AI will be more likely than humans to make very expensive mistakes that the company has to compensate, and saying it was the AI is not a valid cop out.
I foresee companies will go bankrupt on that account.

It doesn't help to save $100k on cutting away an employee, if the AI causes damages for 10 or 100 times that amount.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 19 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

When the bubble bursts, whoever is left standing is going to have to jack prices through the roof to put so much as a dent in their outlay. Their outlay so far. Can't see many companies hanging in there at that point.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 9 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Not if the IP is purchased by another company leaving the original saddled with the debt, or spun off so the parent company can rebuy it thusly, or the government bails them out, or buys it to be the State AI too, or a bunch of other scenarios in this dark new world ahead.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

That’s my favorite part. All the stolen IP.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago

I put my money on AI act here in Europe and the willingness of local authorities to make a few examples. That would help bringing some accountability here and there and stir a bit the pot. Eventually, as AI commodities, it will be less in the light. That will also help.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 83 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

This is how AI will take over... not through wars or competence, but by being better at bureaucratic forgeries...

Edit: well, I guess the apple never falls far from the tree, as it were! Wa-hey! We wanted to create the ultimate worker, but we've managed to create the ultimate politician instead=))

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago

It's easy when the first line of every reply is "oh, you're so goddamn smart. Holy shit, are you the smartest person in the world for asking that question?..."

https://youtu.be/TuEKb9Ktqhc

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

AI politicians might be the move after next.

Corporate personhood(you are here) ->
Corporation self advocates ->
Corporations run for office

I don’t like this future. I’d like to go back.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 23 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

And over the next 50 years it will take 485 million jobs, and the unemployment rate will be 235%.

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] popekingjoe@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Here's hoping!

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 33 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Thus demonstrating the crux of the issue.

I was just looking for a name of a historical figure associated with the Declaration of Independence but not involved in the writing of it. Elizabeth Powel. Once I knew the name, I went through the ai to see how fast they’d get it. Duck.ai confidently gave me 9 different names, including people who were born on 1776 or soon thereafter and could not have been historically involved in any of it. I even said not married to any of the writers and kept getting Abagail Adams and the journalist, Goddard. It was continually distracted by “prominent woman” and would give Elizabeth Cady Stanton instead. Twice.

Finally, I gave the ai a portrait. It took the ai three tries to get the name from the portrait, and the portrait is the most used one under the images tab.

It was very sad. I strongly encourage everyone to test the ai. Easy to grab wikis that would be top of the search anyway are making the ai look good.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 19 points 22 hours ago

If you understand how LLMs work, that's not surprising.

LLMs generate a sequence of words that makes sense in that context. It's trained on trillions(?) of words from books, Wikipedia, etc. In most of the training material, when someone asks "what's the name of the person who did X?" there's an answer, and that answer isn't "I have no fucking clue".

Now, if it were trained on a whole new corpus of data that had "I have no fucking clue" a lot more often, it would see that as a reasonable thing to print sometimes so you'd get that answer a lot more often. However, it doesn't actually understand anything. It just generates sequences of believable words. So, it wouldn't generate "I have no fucking clue" when it doesn't know, it would just generate it occasionally when it seemed like it was an appropriate time. So, you'd ask "Who was the first president of the USA?" and it would sometimes say "I have no fucking clue" because that's sometimes what the training data says a response might look like when someone asks a question of that form.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] weirdbeardgame@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

The Senate will decide its fate.

[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 1 day ago (4 children)

funny... i expected IT workers to be in that list but we're not. AI couldn't do my job but it could be my boss and that frightens me.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 8 points 22 hours ago

I drove Amazon Flex during Covid, having an AI as your boss is deeply and perpetually unsettling but ultimately doable! Just do what the push notification tells you to do. If you want to say something to your boss, use the feedback form on the corporate website. So simple.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If you have a job that you can be confidently wrong without any self awareness after the fact, then yeah I guess.

But I can’t think of many jobs like that except something that is mostly just politics.

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't forget the vast majority of CEOs.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Knowing the way our country is going I would expect in the end workers will have to pay an AI tax on their income and most workers will start working 50 hours a week.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

I don't think the purported numbers themselves are that important, the key bit is that AI is an advancing technology over this century. If we don't rework our society to account for an oncoming future, people will get run over.

If there is an overhaul of my nation's Constitution, I would like economics to be addressed. One such thing would be a mechanical ruleset that adjusts the amount of wealth and assets a company can hold, according to employee headcount. If they downsize the amount of working humans, their limit goes down. They can opt to join a lotto program, that grants UBI to people whose occupation is displaced by AI, and each income that is lotto'ed by the company adds to their Capital Asset Limit.

[–] BruceAlrighty@lemmy.nz 2 points 8 hours ago

"If there is a massive overhaul, I would like to use this once in a century event to enact minimal changes that will help to keep the capitalist system in place."

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

One such thing would be a mechanical ruleset that adjusts the amount of wealth and assets a company can hold, according to employee headcount.

Expert here. That's a bad idea. Example: a small law firm, 10 employees including owners/partners/I don't care how they're organized. They have 3 bank accounts: their payroll account, their operating fund (where all their nonpayroll expenditures are made) and their client liability account. None of the money in that account is actually theirs, they just hold it while waiting for clients to cash their settlement checks.

Proportionally, at least at the firm I've consulted with, their client liability account is several orders of magnitude larger than either of the other accounts. Technically the money isn't theirs, they are just custodians, and the interest from that account is their bar association dues.

My point is, certain asset caps may look appropriate for one industry and simultaneously be absolutely disruptive to others.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 hours ago

As a more general principle, don't build nitpicky implementation detail into a strategy document. That's how you get brainfarts like the 3/5 compromise.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

In that case, what would you believe to be an appropriate solution for your industry? I would like your viewpoint, it might refine my concept a bit further*.

*My approach is assuming a scenario that can be broadly be described as 'What if FDR failed to save capitalism?', or a total breakdown of the economic reality we know. That is the sort of thing that the Framers of America did when they made the Constitution. They formalized rules on preventing absolute political power, so I am looking for something similar regarding economic gaps.

[–] ShittDickk@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I've thought a good one would be to have all publicly traded business allocate 15% equity to employees, and require a seat on the board for an employee elected representative. Employees should be allowed to vote to sell off a certain amount every quarter, and any stock buybacks would go into the employee pool until the 15% is reached again.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

I have a feeling that this is different from Beeg's concern about client assets, but more about employee influence over the company? The idea of an equity limit might be a good addition to the Universal Ranked Income concept that I have cobbled together. Thank you. :)


In any case, my notes has two things about my own take:

1: Employees can vote for whether someone can obtain and retain their leadership position within their chapter and for higher rungs of the organization. Also, the pay grade of those leaders. Employees who are fired or retired from the company will receive 1:1 retirement pay over time, equal to the days and pay grade that they worked at the company, and can vote on any position of the company or those it has merged with. This essentially means that legacy employees can determine the leadership of the company, and cannot be made to 'go away' in a political sense.

2: Stocks when sold, have two components. The first is that they pay an amount over a fixed time, that is more than what they were paid for. It cannot be be sold nor traded, until it has been exhausted of this payback value. When exhausted of value, the share can now be traded to another individual for money, or returned to the company for the value it was bought at. The company cannot refuse the return, nor offer an increased price. A share returned to the company can be reissued, which allows it to start paying the fixed value again. Secondly, people who hold a share can vote for company leadership*. People within leadership positions at the company cannot own stocks from their own organization.

By requiring stocks to be held for a certain time before they can be traded, it makes it harder for stockholders to hoard and dispose of stocks when convenient. The gradual payout is a reward to people who buy stocks from the company. Presumably, the inability of stocks to have guaranteed value when they become tradeable will promote their return to the company.

*It is assumed that we are operating within an economic system, where there are absolute wealth and asset caps. There is only so many shares a person can possess, and holding shares can prevent someone from owning a yacht or bigger house - they have to lose the shares to make room within the cap for things they enjoy. This helps limit the influence of individual stock holders.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

There's a few ways to account for it. i mean, if you are doing Net Assets (Assets-Liability), that's just Equity and having a limit on the total Equity a business is able to carry at specific sizes feels like it's incentivizing the wrong things.

It's kind of interesting to see the changes in investment rates that happened when the tax rate dropped from 90% on anything over a million in annual income. People would essentially buy losses (invest in businesses that were struggling) in order to keep from having to pay the government more. So struggling businesses got a little more capital to survive. Simply changing the top personal/corp income tax rate to something draconian at some arbitrarily high amount can have transformative effects on a society. that's where i'd start.

[–] survirtual@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

What is it you're an expert of, here? Game theory? Or do you mean you're a lawyer?

If you're a lawyer, you are not an expert on formulating a society. We've let lawyers run things for a long time and look at where it's gotten us.

The system needs to promote positive, human centric outcomes. Maybe having clients with that much wealth isn't fundamentally a positive outcome? Perhaps that idea needs to be reworked as a part of the oncoming changes?

In other words, anyone dealing with a certain threshold of wealth needs to hire human beings in order to raise their cap. I like this idea a lot actually. The bigger the clients, the more they have to pay if they want legal representation. For billionaires, legal representation would cost an absolute fortune and provide income to thousands of people.

Honestly I haven't thought of this pattern but the more I think about it, the better it seems.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe having clients with that much wealth isn’t fundamentally a positive outcome?

let's remove the ability of people to sue for damages when they're injured, that's ALSO a positive societal goal.

where do you think that money came from?

[–] survirtual@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Preferably, yes. Ideally, we are all insured by a single payer system and in the case of an accident, people are compensated via that insurance.

No legal bank account needed.

Next point?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

oh, you want to argue. accidents are a very small subset of legal injuries

load more comments
view more: next ›