224
"Come and take it"
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2026
224 points (98.3% liked)
Fuck AI
8793 readers
616 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
Rules:
- Relevant posts only.
- No bigotry.
- No misinformation.
- No NSFW/NSFL content without being labeled NSFW or being in an appropriately-labeled spoiler tag.
- This isn't a place to talk about the cons and (supposed) pros of AI for different use cases. This is /c/fuck_ai .
- Especially no AI advocacy.
- No AI-generated content. If you want to post examples of AI failing hillariously, there are other communities for that like !ArtificialIgnorance@lemmy.ca .
- Venting is part of the purpose of this community, but don't aim frustration or accusations at other users.
- These rules are a living document that may change in the future.
You can help the mod team by making your reports detailed.
Effective reports:
- "The third image is a well-known anti-semitic trope"
- "Claiming that 'agentic AI' can outperform humans at all jobs is misinformation"
Less effective reports:
- "Breaks rules"
- "Misinformation"
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Where are they gonna get the money to pay for it tho?
They don’t get money from those things tho
They just burn money, they literally can’t make any
Investment firms do, which are the ones giving them money.
In effect, yes, that is how it works and they do get money from it.
Investment firms like returns
They’re just starting to realize they’ll never see one from this, and once it’s apparent to enough of them, the spigot is gonna close
Investment firms create returns through market manipulation.
Thats all these AI firms are to them. The product itself is irrelevant. A funding round increases speculation.
They make money on it going up, and they make money on it going down. Don't expect them to stop shoveling money in just because its "unprofitable" for the company they are investing in.
The stock valuation is the only profit they need.
They only make money on it going down if they get the right valuation and find a big enough sucker to buy their shares
Something they have historically been extremely good at, yes.
Pershing Square in 2020 is the most recent one I can think of. In terms of industries you've got the obvious subprime market example, the telecom industry in the late 90s, and probably the best example of an entirely fake industry - forestry/reverse mergers about 15 years ago with Chinese Forestry companies that were basically complete fabrications.
This is what they do.
Edit: typo, should have been 15 not 25.
The subprime mortgage shit was only profitable because they got bailed out by the government tho
Hopefully it doesn’t happen again, but if it does, the difference is that AI companies, if bailed out directly, would immediately lose all of the bailout money. If the banks got bailed out, I doubt they would give any more money to the AI people
It was bailed out because the people who drop cash into elections (large investors) would have been impacted.
If it got to bailout for AI, they'd profit from the bailout, talk it up for retail, have their market news correspondents talk up about how there is huge profit to be made to get more retail investors (ie: bagholders) roped in, and profit off the drop.
This is what history tells me, you can come to your own conclusions of course, but IMO... AI is just the newest vehicle for the same story we've seen cycle (faster every time it seems) over the past.... Well, century at this point. Maybe more but before the stock market I'm without examples I'm personally aware of.
I hear what you’re saying, but I think people have finally become wise to their game, so it would be interesting to see how they react to it this time around (especially considering how much less they have to justify it this time around)
Considering the number of people voting directly against their interests or the number who get duped into thinking AGI is currently realistic, I have my doubts.
We'll see though, because its definitely coming
Someone would still need to pay for it, regardless of how useful it is.
Useful is not the same thing as profitable.
AI is not being used as a weapon, it is being used as an accountability sink for the people using the weapons. Also useful, but not profitable.
I think we have a disagreement about what counts as a weapon.
The missles that the US military willfully deployed to triple tap the children’s school in Iran were weapons. The AI “Targeting systems” that told them that children’s school was a valid target is not a “weapon” in the sense that it doesn’t do anything other than identify “targets”.
The purpose of this is to allow the user to knowingly commit war crimes, while being able to put the accountability for target acquisition onto the AI.
Israel uses it in the same way to prosecute their ongoing genocide of the Palestinians.
Do you know of an alternate way in which the AI is being used as a weapon? I haven’t heard of one, but i would be interested to learn new information.
(To be clear, I am in no way pro-AI, and i do not think the way that it is being used in war is acceptable. I just don’t think an LLM constitutes a weapon in and of itself)
They can use them to hack, yeah, thats fair.
What do you mean by “locally in silencing disobedience”?
It’s not better than propaganda, it’s still propaganda, quality aside.
The term “locally” would imply that they are on your home network, which I don’t see happening for most people.
Don’t be a defeatist, we are not fucked.
The disaster that’s coming is a financial one, not some Terminator skynet bullshit, lmao
There are also surveillance dangers, but the people have been doing a surprisingly good job of circumventing that.
If you believe what you’re saying then you should do something about it other than ruminate on the internet
Did you even read this article dude? Lmao
It doesn’t mention AI once, actual human hackers did this, and they were only able to do it because the supermarket was dumb enough to let a computer control all of their refrigerators.
Read the article.
They got the credentials through phishing.
Do you understand what phishing is?
The refrigerators were on unsecured networks, past their service life (no longer receiving security updates), and were using the default password.
Which part do you think the hackers needed AI for?
Using AI to “hack” into a system that insecure would be equivalent to using an AI to “hack” into the McDonald’s free guest wifi.
That’s not how projection works.
You didn’t say that verbatim, but it was implied by bringing up normalcy bias, and your imagination of “90s movie style hackers”.
Lmao, you don’t know me or my situation dog
And you don’t?
Bullets are weapons, guns are not weapons.
Thats not a great analogy
A gun doesn’t obfuscate your accountability
It would be more accurate of my argument to say “carbombs are weapons, cars are not weapons”
Neither of those analogies cover the element of obfuscating accountability tho, which again, is what they are using the AI to do.
You do not need AI to blow up a children’s school.
You use the AI so you can say “oops, i didn’t mean to triple tap that children’s school, the computer told me it was terrorists”
The fact that AI obfuscates responsibility doesn't actually change its role. AI trained to pick targets are obviously weapons.
They're just autonomous weapons, or maybe more similar to mines. Set it and forget it! If they walk on the mine, that's their fault.
My understanding of the way theyre using it is that it is not directly in charge of munitions.
Which is to say, the AI does not fire the missle, a human fires the missle. That human is (theoretically) able to dodge accountability because they just pretend to believe what the AI says is completely accurate.
Imagine a sniper rifle with a thermal scope. The scope is detachable, it can be used without the gun, but not as a weapon. The gun can be used without the scope, as a weapon, and has other methods of target acquisition available (iron sights if nothing else).
When you look through the thermal scope you see a heat signiature, but it obfuscates if the target is an enemy or a civilian. So using the heat scope allows you to pretend that you thought the civilians you murdered were actually enemy combatants.
A mine doesn’t need a human to detonate it, and the powers that be are not (yet) psychotic enough to give control of the weapons systems to the AI.
I'm still not sure how you're getting "doesn't count as a weapon" from that.
A thermal scope that obfuscates the target sure as shit seems like it's a weapon designed to kill civilians.
The scope is not a weapon, it doesn’t have to be attached to the gun, and can be used non-violently without a gun.
The gun does not need the scope to function, and the gun essentially only functions violently.
Do you think a plate is food?
A gun needs a bullet to function. It can not be used as a weapon without a bullet.
Therefore, guns are not weapons. Guns are plates.
Aight, you’re either a troll or incredibly dense, so I’m out