Editor's Note: For those of you reading via email, I recommend opening this in a browser so you can use the Table of Contents. This is my longest newsletter - a 16,000-word-long opus - and if you like it, please subscribe to my premium newsletter. Thanks for reading! In

I feel that there is a massive double standard between those perceived as “skeptics” and “optimists.”

To be skeptical of AI is to commit yourself to near-constant demands to prove yourself, and endless nags of “but what about?” with each one — no matter how small — presented as a fact that defeats any points you may have. Conversely, being an “optimist” allows you to take things like AI 2027 seriously to the point that you can write an entire feature about fan fiction in the New York Times and nobody will bat an eyelid.

In any case, things are beginning to fall apart. Two of the actual reporters at the New York Times (rather than a “columnist”) reported out last week that Meta is yet again “restructuring” its AI department for the fourth time, and that it’s considering “downsizing the A.I. division overall,” which sure doesn’t seem like something you’d do if you thought AI was the future.

Meanwhile, the markets are also thoroughly spooked by an MIT study covered by Fortune that found that 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing, and though MIT NANDA has now replaced the link to the study with a Google Form to request access, you can find the full PDF here.

Nevertheless, boosters will still find a way to twist this study to mean something else. They’ll claim that AI is still early, that the opportunity is still there, that we “didn’t confirm that the internet or smartphones were productivity boosting,” or that we’re in “the early days” of AI, somehow, three years and hundreds of billions and thousands of articles in.

I’m tired of having the same arguments with these people, and I’m sure you are too. No matter how much blindly obvious evidence there is to the contrary they will find ways to ignore it. They continually make smug comments about people “wishing things would be bad” or suggesting you are stupid — and yes, that is their belief! — for not believing generative AI is disruptive.

Today, I’m going to give you the tools to fight back against the AI boosters in your life. I’m going to go into the generalities of the booster movement — the way they argue, the tropes they cling to, and the ways in which they use your own self-doubt against you.

  • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
    17·
    11 days ago

    The way I view AI is the way I view those pod coffee machines. They are good at doing a couple things. The only difference is people aren’t trying to push those as a solution to everything.

    You want a single cup of coffee? My guy, this machine will give you exactly what you want.

    You want multiple cups of coffee? Ok, so you can just use this machine multiple times. Yes, it will be annoying and you’ll have to sit there guiding it to make coffee the whole time. Yes, it will be cold, bland coffee by the time you’re finished. Yeah, it will produce tons of waste, but that’s just worth it because you’ll have so much coffee. I’m sure everyone will want to drink it.

    Oh, you want a latte? Well you can use this machine as a starting point, then finish it yourself. Oh no, it won’t be a good latte, but it will be faster than making it yourself, and speed is the most important thing about lattes. Oh, you’re good at making lattes and can make it faster yourself? Well, not all of us are good at lattes. Stop gatekeeping lattes, my dude.

    You want orange juice? Just squeeze an orange into this machine, right where the pod would go! It’s so versatile! You’re gonna love the hot, watered down orange juice! It looks just like regular orange juice, doesn’t it!? How could you not like it??

    You want a cheeseburger? Hold on, I’m positive I can figure out how to get a cheeseburger out of this machine. I’m going to keep finagling it until I can get it to regurgitate something that looks like a cheeseburger.