• DillDough@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      35 minutes ago

      Why should we continue allowing him to drain us like the parasite he is? He’s okay with ending our species if he’s able to generate the most capital and control of any organization in history, why is it so unacceptable that we simply end him instead?

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 minutes ago

    Sam Altman has lost the plot.

    His own model of LLM isn’t sustainable or profitable, where the local software model us.

    And the economy isn’t there just to make Sam Altman richer.

    This is (another) Let them eat cake moment in which another spoiled aristocrat has lost touch with the common people.

  • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 hours ago

    The problem isn’t the AI, the issue is that the elites are trying to horde it and keep it from us little people. If we are to have agency, having personal ownership over local AI, collectively owned AI, and regulations, are all key to ensuring that democracy and egalitarianism is secure.

    The elite will not willingly surrender power, especially there is a void that they can colonize. Ordinary people like us should fill the vacuum, to deny the elite from having total control over AI.

  • SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 hours ago

    So we’d own a basic terminal, and pay a subscription for our computing needs.

    Gosh, who’d’a thunkit? Never saw that one coming.

    • MrShankles@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      27 minutes ago

      Especially not when he said how he envisions ai to someday be a utility like water or electricity, that everyone will pay for

      Shocked, I tell you. I’m utterly shocked

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 minutes ago

      So we’d own a basic terminal, and pay a subscription for our computing needs.

      No.

      We would rent a proprietary terminal that also needs a paid subscription to a computing service.

    • baltakatei@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      “In this supply-constrained environment, efficiency of centralized control only makes sense!”

      “For whom? Also, why is the supply constrained in the first place?”

      “Well, we used hype from central bank-level investors to lend us enough to buy up all the supply. We have sooo much debt that we need every penny of efficiency we can get.”

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 minutes ago

        “In this supply-constrained environment, efficiency of centralized control only makes sense!”

        “For whom?

        Makes (financial) sense for the central controller’s business model to succeed.

  • SplitTheUSInFour@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Nope. We’re slamming out our software, canceling our accounts, and running things ourselves. Requires a lot less electricity and works faster. Efficiency is king in business. You sir, are inefficient and no one enjoys giving you their money.

    This idiot never learned the golden rule: everybody is using everybody. Even him. It’s within the customers right to do this themselves. Don’t play the game if you can’t handle the rules.

    • zebidiah@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Most people don’t understand just how little compute they actually need to run their lives, a few basic self hosted apps on a 10+ year old laptop sitting in your closet can replace at least 85% of your dependency on big tech. You get a better experience, and your data doesn’t ever leave your house.

  • luna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I just read an article yesterday about a young woman who passed away after following the advice of an AI to stop taking her medication. I simply don’t understand why these capitalists are always so intent on monopolizing the market and controlling people. Are they truly so foolish that they always assume they’re right about everything—as if they were omnipotent?

    • PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      I simply don’t understand why these capitalists are always so intent on monopolizing the market and controlling people.

      Power and money. They’re real life super villains. It’s why most people run for politics or become cops. Some want to make the world better, most just want to control others because they’ve lacked any kind of control at home or through their lives.

    • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yes, they assume because they have money they are doing everything right and must be the smartest people around. Even average people equate money with intelligence for some reason. It’s insane because the majority of people with lots of money inherited it. It’s almost impossible to become rich using just intelligence and hard work though. You always have to exploit people and be unethical in some way

  • Avicenna@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    6 minutes ago

    Yeah with open models catching up and giving reasonable results in consumer grade setups, they are gonna go full on with “unregulated AI is too dangerous we should only allow hardware gated LLMs”.

    It is so funny this guy is the CEO of a company called openAI lol.

  • Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    So is he gonna redistribute his wealth? Cause ya know? Wealth hoarding is terrible and the people hoarding wealth (Sam Altman) should have to redistribute their wealth because that money could be better used to serve the people, right? In fact all billionaires and trillionaires should be engaging in wealth redistribution, right?

    If we’re gonna agree from a general consensus agreement POV why not make him give us his money because I mean if people owning computers is hurting the worldwide Ai industry, then clearly the wealth hoarding hurting the global economy can be solved simply by someone telling others to engage in redistribution, right?

  • SlayersFan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I mean I was waiting to see how shitty the apple tv neuromancer adaptation would be next year, but at this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up pushing random Timmys into becoming techies and netrunners. Life imitates art I guess.