Maybe even LinkedIn users are done with AI
LinkedIn is kind of the bad place, but I'm on there a lot looking for work. I happened to see an informal poll asking if people would go back to a world before AI. I fully expected LinkedIn to be gushing over how great AI is, but (with an admittedly tiny sample size) it's not so hot.
- 59% absolutely want to go back
- 14% say AI is the future
- 22% say they're excited but concerned
- 2% are undecided, somehow.
This made me feel a little better, somehow.
30 replies
We should find a way to trick them into increasing spending before the bubble pops so the inevitable is as painful as possible
Didn't Claude ban someone for this? I saw a meme of someone asking to re-write typescript in rust.
The sample here is people who interact with that specific user who posted the poll. The exact same poll would have totally different results depending on the person posting it, with some people who have very pro-AI professional circles getting pro-AI results, and people who have anti-AI professional circles getting anti-AI results.
This is meaningless.
Statistically meaningless. Emotionally soothing.
“Meaningless” is a strong term.
How biased is the user who posted the poll, and their audience?
i've not been on linkedin in some years, so as someone unrepresented by this poll i'd go further and say mass adoption of cellphones was also a mistake. it may not be a popular opinion, but it's earnest and it's mine.
i can get behind that from the perspective that people just willingly gave up their privacy for convenience, then their privacy was slowly eroded further while the convenience became more and more dubious. having a computer in my pocket is nice, but its honestly barely functional as one these days with how locked down they are and how they force you to install an app for every minor thing...
Cellphones as a whole or smartphones specifically, given the attention economy and other predatory bullshit that arose subsequently?
cellphones as a whole. mainly the tracking and overall erosion of privacy that resulted, but also i think of it as a pretty significant cultural shift toward neoliberalism. i mean there were pay phones (which had drawbacks) but were a shared resource. suddenly everyone has a phone in their pocket and community gave way to individualism. then there's resource extraction. just so many reasons. sorry - didn't mean to subvert the post.
everything is cool until it becomes mandatory
Cell phones are good and extremely useful. Smart phones might have been a mistake...
I gotta say that it's super handy to have a pocket computer with instant connectivity.
i don't dispute that. i just think maybe there's tradeoffs we stopped considering.
I don't think no phones would have changed the course we heading
I think the technology was never really the problem, it's the monetization. There should've been strict data protections from the start and ads should've been banned a century ago. Then companies couldn't get users addicted on 'free' products making money by secretly selling their data. It would've meant having to provide a real service to users they'd be willing to pay for. This would disincentivize enshittification because a worse product would actually result in customers leaving for competitors.
Monetization does not account for people spending more time on their phones and less time with each other. Or for crackpots finding community they wouldn't otherwise be able to, limiting the coercive power of shame.
Tech does have a lot of capital-related problems, but also a lot of social ones. And in some ways, the social ones are the ones I'm more concerned about.
I would be lost (pun intended) without the map on my phone, but maybe an alternative could have taken off.
Standalone GPS units you stuck to your windshield with a suction cup were extremely prevalent and became a mature technology in the years before smartphones were viable.
I use the walking and transit functionality of Google maps extensively. Being able to account for "the G is not running but there's a free shuttle bus" is really nice.
Windshields are pretty cumbersome for pedestrians.
Just as well that most pedestrians also have hands, then. Pockets, even.
I've got a handheld Garmin GPS unit that's also a two way radio and a weather radio, and if anyone in your party has a similar radio it can magically put their location and heading on your map on your screen, all via FRS or GMRS without the need for cell towers or any infrastructure whatsoever. The technology can clearly be made. It's just that smartphones have stepped in and eaten the lunches of multiple peripherally related markets.
i hear you. i think about how relying on this technology has maybe begun to atrophy our mental abilities. we used to rely on memory so much more for things. it's (one of) the same reservations i have about ai
Did you know there are people who refuse to learn to read because they feel it degrades memory? I always think of that when I hear arguments like this.
Old people have been saying that about all technology since the beginning of recorded history. it just means that people don't stay exactly the same as they have always been. Novels were mocked as being foolish, books themselves were mocked when they replaced tablets, i mean it goes on and on. And you're right that abilities may atrophy. Do people have poorer handwriting now? Yes. Does it matter at all? Not really. I think you're wrong though about memory atrophying. I have been using computers and cell phones since I was a child, and I have excellent memory. Regarding navigation via phone - Can I conduct orienteering with a map? No. Does it matter at all? Not really.
Yeah, and does being able to lift a 70kg barbell matter at all?
Actually, yes. Cardiovascular health and physical fitness are linked to longer and better lives.
Old people were saying that you shouldn't let the convenience of technology make you fucking stupid. And your passivity on this issue tells me that you're kind of failing to.
"say they’re excited but concerned"
Excited but concerned about returning to a world without AI or excited but concerned with AI but want AI?
Huh. I read that choice as meaning "I am excited about heading into the future with AI, but I'm concerned it might end badly", but on rereading the actual question I see that's a weird answer for it.
Basically the other options are "AI good", "AI bad", and "I dunno". I took the remaining option to cover either "AI both good and bad" or "AI neutral".
This makes sense. There's the hordes posting nonsense about AI, but that's only one demographic using LinkedIn. Another big group is like you, trying to get a new job after getting laid off. While your feed is almost exclusively the former, the latter may still respond to polls.
Something I find interesting is the ambiguity in this question.
I think you can be pro-AI and also prefer to go back to before AI in a “we should make the best of the opportunities we have now” kind of mindset. A mindset that is also disinclined from opposing the mainstream and scared of being left behind etc.
In other words, the question’s premise is an unrealistic magical solution and doesn’t directly concern practical reality.
Which might be a neat way of cutting through the noise people’s rebellious or conformist or opportunistic mindsets which can cloud the essential question of whether this all feels good or bad to people.