As soon as Apple announced its plans to inject generative AI into the iPhone, it was as good as official: The technology is now all but unavoidable. Large language models will soon lurk on most of the world’s smartphones, generating images and text in messaging and email apps. AI has already colonized web search, appearing in Google and Bing. OpenAI, the $80 billion start-up that has partnered with Apple and Microsoft, feels ubiquitous; the auto-generated products of its ChatGPTs and DALL-Es are everywhere. And for a growing number of consumers, that’s a problem.

Rarely has a technology risen—or been forced—into prominence amid such controversy and consumer anxiety. Certainly, some Americans are excited about AI, though a majority said in a recent survey, for instance, that they are concerned AI will increase unemployment; in another, three out of four said they believe it will be abused to interfere with the upcoming presidential election. And many AI products have failed to impress. The launch of Google’s “AI Overview” was a disaster; the search giant’s new bot cheerfully told users to add glue to pizza and that potentially poisonous mushrooms were safe to eat. Meanwhile, OpenAI has been mired in scandal, incensing former employees with a controversial nondisclosure agreement and allegedly ripping off one of the world’s most famous actors for a voice-assistant product. Thus far, much of the resistance to the spread of AI has come from watchdog groups, concerned citizens, and creators worried about their livelihood. Now a consumer backlash to the technology has begun to unfold as well—so much so that a market has sprung up to capitalize on it.


Obligatory “fuck 99.9999% of all AI use-cases, the people who make them, and the techbros that push them.”

  • Zaktor
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    No, not even remotely. And that’s kind of like citing “the first program to run on a CPU” as the start of development for any new algorithm.

    • PeteBauxigeg@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      As far as I can find out, there was only one use of GPUs prior to alexnet for CNN, and it certainty didn’t have the impact alexnet had. Besides, running this stuff on GPUs not CPUs is a relevant technological breakthrough, imagine how slow chayGPT would be running on a CPU. And it’s not at all as obvious as it seems, most weather forecasts still run on CPU clusters despite them being obvious targets for GPUs.

      • Zaktor
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        What? Alexnet wasn’t a breakthrough in that it used GPUs, it was a breakthrough for its depth and performance on image recognition benchmarks.

        We knew GPUs could speed up neural networks in 2004. And I’m not sure that was even the first.

        • PeteBauxigeg@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Okay, so some of the advances that chatGPT uses (consumer GPUs for training) are even older? 😁

          • Zaktor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Why stop there? The digital computer was introduced in 1942 and methods for solving linear equations were developed in the 1600s.