This reads very well. There are many different layers overlapping here - the technology itself, the public image being built around it, the investment hype, real organizational adoption, and the everyday experience of people trying to use it.
I have been working with generative AI for past few years now: learning it, using it, and building tools and systems based on this technology. From that perspective, I see a similar problem. On one side, there are people who attribute an almost divine or religious quality to AI, as if you can simply “plug AI in” and everything will solve itself. On the other side, the reality is much more demanding. The models are becoming more advanced, but we still need to verify, think, design processes, experiment, make decisions, and take responsibility for the outcome.
We do not know exactly how AI constructs each specific answer, even if the general principles behind generative AI are known. That is part of the problem: the answers often sound credible regardless of whether they are correct. So sounding intelligent cannot be the basis for trust.
For me, there is a difference between the hype bubble and a more balanced reality. Hype glorifies the technology and ignores its costs. Reality is more complex, AI has real value, but it also has limitations, risks, and social consequences. After these few years, it is clear that the problem is not only the technology itself, but also the way we are trying to implement it without enough reflection, education, or responsibility.
I also think many people today feel anxiety, fatigue, and a lack of trust because no one has really taught us how to work in this new environment: neither at the micro level, where an individual interacts with a chatbot, nor at the macro level, where large organizations redesign processes around AI. It's all Wild West.
After reading Harari, I also see more clearly that the biggest challenge is not machine intelligence itself, but the lack of mature cooperation between people, companies, and governments. We need more humility, agency, and real responsibility. We have every right to feel angry, scared, and exhausted, but we should not remain passive. We need fewer mainstream narratives and more curiosity, education, pressure on institutions, and constructive action.
Thanks Dominika. I agree with every word you’re saying. This vast rush to implement a technology that is not fully understood and that is prone to making drastic errors … is simply not sane. We desperately need the kind of balanced perspective you’re proposing.
In the meantime, all these issues are proliferating.
I’m sorry to say it, but something drastic needs to happen to wake people up. I don’t know who’s going to step up to the plate, but someone is going to try an application that really brings home to the world just how disastrous the thoughtless use of AI can be.
I would say to any developer — don’t let this someone be you.
Thankyou, Thankyou !!! So instructive. When I think that 70 years ago when I was born in the US, my middle class parents had no tv, no washing machine, an old stand up radio...then when my sons were born...the first home computers , gameboys, etc were becoming popular. I was not yet too worried. My boys were happier discovering the world outdide. Then I met Joseph Weizenbaum from MIT, a professor in computer technology who warned parents about allowing their children under 14 to use computers. We have come a long way in a short time. I used to think, well OK, technological tools are alright if used in ethical ways. But, boy has it gotten more complicated then that. And I know many teenagers addicted to their virtual online life. However I do not cultivate fear of what is coming towards us from the future. But I do feel it ever more neccessary to be properly informed. And your writing certainly contributes to that. Thankyou once again.
A great pleasure, I’m glad you found it interesting. I’m very much appreciating your artwork, I’m a musician, not very visually literate, but I love your work, thank you.
Enjoying your opinions, Fred, and how you came to form them.
"There are innumerable other cases where chatbots have encouraged people in their harmful and delusional behaviours. I honestly don’t know how Sam Altman sleeps at night."
But all we need is more parameters then we'll have AGI, right? :D
Just the other day an LLM ironically assured me that the scorching from towers was a hoax and that there was no credible evidence of them being dangerous.
All over Johannesburg (city full of trees, it’s technically a forest) I would point out scorching in trees exactly in the maximum beam, about 100-150 m away. Pine trees especially, this has often been noted. You can see the panels on the towers and their angle of tilt, there’s no question about it, we had lots of photos. We had pictures in the newspaper of scorched branches literally doing U-turns and trying to bend away from a tower.
This reads very well. There are many different layers overlapping here - the technology itself, the public image being built around it, the investment hype, real organizational adoption, and the everyday experience of people trying to use it.
I have been working with generative AI for past few years now: learning it, using it, and building tools and systems based on this technology. From that perspective, I see a similar problem. On one side, there are people who attribute an almost divine or religious quality to AI, as if you can simply “plug AI in” and everything will solve itself. On the other side, the reality is much more demanding. The models are becoming more advanced, but we still need to verify, think, design processes, experiment, make decisions, and take responsibility for the outcome.
We do not know exactly how AI constructs each specific answer, even if the general principles behind generative AI are known. That is part of the problem: the answers often sound credible regardless of whether they are correct. So sounding intelligent cannot be the basis for trust.
For me, there is a difference between the hype bubble and a more balanced reality. Hype glorifies the technology and ignores its costs. Reality is more complex, AI has real value, but it also has limitations, risks, and social consequences. After these few years, it is clear that the problem is not only the technology itself, but also the way we are trying to implement it without enough reflection, education, or responsibility.
I also think many people today feel anxiety, fatigue, and a lack of trust because no one has really taught us how to work in this new environment: neither at the micro level, where an individual interacts with a chatbot, nor at the macro level, where large organizations redesign processes around AI. It's all Wild West.
After reading Harari, I also see more clearly that the biggest challenge is not machine intelligence itself, but the lack of mature cooperation between people, companies, and governments. We need more humility, agency, and real responsibility. We have every right to feel angry, scared, and exhausted, but we should not remain passive. We need fewer mainstream narratives and more curiosity, education, pressure on institutions, and constructive action.
Thanks Dominika. I agree with every word you’re saying. This vast rush to implement a technology that is not fully understood and that is prone to making drastic errors … is simply not sane. We desperately need the kind of balanced perspective you’re proposing.
In the meantime, all these issues are proliferating.
I’m sorry to say it, but something drastic needs to happen to wake people up. I don’t know who’s going to step up to the plate, but someone is going to try an application that really brings home to the world just how disastrous the thoughtless use of AI can be.
I would say to any developer — don’t let this someone be you.
Thankyou, Thankyou !!! So instructive. When I think that 70 years ago when I was born in the US, my middle class parents had no tv, no washing machine, an old stand up radio...then when my sons were born...the first home computers , gameboys, etc were becoming popular. I was not yet too worried. My boys were happier discovering the world outdide. Then I met Joseph Weizenbaum from MIT, a professor in computer technology who warned parents about allowing their children under 14 to use computers. We have come a long way in a short time. I used to think, well OK, technological tools are alright if used in ethical ways. But, boy has it gotten more complicated then that. And I know many teenagers addicted to their virtual online life. However I do not cultivate fear of what is coming towards us from the future. But I do feel it ever more neccessary to be properly informed. And your writing certainly contributes to that. Thankyou once again.
A great pleasure, I’m glad you found it interesting. I’m very much appreciating your artwork, I’m a musician, not very visually literate, but I love your work, thank you.
Enjoying your opinions, Fred, and how you came to form them.
"There are innumerable other cases where chatbots have encouraged people in their harmful and delusional behaviours. I honestly don’t know how Sam Altman sleeps at night."
But all we need is more parameters then we'll have AGI, right? :D
Just the other day an LLM ironically assured me that the scorching from towers was a hoax and that there was no credible evidence of them being dangerous.
Great piece Fred.
All over Johannesburg (city full of trees, it’s technically a forest) I would point out scorching in trees exactly in the maximum beam, about 100-150 m away. Pine trees especially, this has often been noted. You can see the panels on the towers and their angle of tilt, there’s no question about it, we had lots of photos. We had pictures in the newspaper of scorched branches literally doing U-turns and trying to bend away from a tower.