The Public Is Rapidly Turning Against AI, Polling Shows

So much of AI is all about tricking people into thinking they are interacting with a real person, or that something was created by a real person.<p>It’s become a dog whistle such that if a company or person uses AI, you have to question how much they actually care about or value the actual service they are providing. It’s very quickly becoming associated with spammy and scammy entities. Just look at the recent Willie Wonka event that used generative AI in its marketing to trick people into thinking what they were buying was a higher value than what it actually was. The bar on creative work, which once served as a proxy to actual value, has been eroded and reduced so low and people are catching on. The net affect on society is not good and causing less trust, not more and will likely lead to greatly reduced valuations of AI as a whole, no matter what it creates and at what quality —- people may just stop consuming altogether or be less likely to consume.

I think there&#x27;s a sense that our personal experiences are being hijacked by algorithms. This has been going on for at least a decade or two but they&#x27;ve been getting more and more devious and extractive as the Internet, and our attention has been heavily capitalized upon. Nothing is private. Everything is for sale. Your worth is algorithmic, and AI is the biggest and most devious algorithm there is.

I do think this is the blind spot in all of Altmans hyper competitive moves.<p>As a public we’ve had years of cultural warnings that this tech especially needs to be navigated with wisdom and ethical consideration.<p>Trust can initially be quickly gained, but once lost, very hard to regain.<p>I’m not sure about anyone else but I’m already cautious which questions I ask Chat GPT and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

I&#x27;m sure that has nothing to do with decades of self-propagandizing that AI was something to be feared in fiction coupled with a year now of everyone who writes for a living embodying the Upton Sinclair quote &quot;don&#x27;t expect someone to understand something their job depends on them not understanding.&quot;<p>I haven&#x27;t seen a positive article on AI from mainstream press in at least a year.<p>Yeah, under those conditions public sentiment is going to be influenced in a given direction.

The truth is that _truths are contentious_. AI simply cannot fully convey the discourse around any given topic without angering or neglecting one group or another.<p>This means that the creators of a given AI will necessarily pick and choose which &quot;reality&quot; it is going to convey.

The article is light on details but it&#x27;s important to differentiate between two kinds of AI.<p>1) Deeply integrated into the product. This is what we&#x27;ve mostly seen to date. Google Search, Facebook&#x27;s feed, Amazon results, etc. I can see how people are getting tired of these applications of AI. My wife asked me how she can search for something without it following her around the Internet. I said, &quot;you can&#x27;t really&quot;.<p>2) AI as the product. This new set of AI use cases feel quite different (for now, read on). Users intentionally interact knowing and wanting the AI related value they receive. As all novel products, this type of AI will also get so commercialized that it&#x27;s not in the business of solving the user&#x27;s needs. At least not as it&#x27;s first priority. And people will grow tired of it too.<p>Rinse, repeat.

&quot;Trust in AI is down globally from 61 percent in 2019 to just 53 percent, per the Edelman poll.&quot; I am having a hard time finding exactly what this number means in the linked report. I see a &quot;50&quot; for AI on page 13 - is that the number that used to be 61?

Well of course it does. This is the industrial revolution and Luddism all over again.

Anything will be banned if there’s consensus, voluntary or otherwise, around imprisoning those who disobey

[dupe]<p>More discussion on the axios post here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39616302">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39616302</a>

&quot;Shortened question text Throughout the report, question text has been edited for readability.&quot;<p>Wait, what?<p>If it needs to be &quot;shortened for readability&quot; for the report, how do we know it wasn&#x27;t confusing to the respondents in its original form?<p>I mean, maybe it&#x27;s fine, but push polling is totally a thing.<p>I don&#x27;t trust polls unless the writeup prominently features details about a) exactly how the subjects were selected, b) the exact text of the questions that were asked, and c) exactly how the data was collected.<p>A U.S.-based example: a stranger calls someone on the phone and asks them whether they own a firearm, or, alternatively, whether they&#x27;ve ever had an abortion. In either case, it&#x27;s not a safe bet that the answer is going to be honest.<p>Another example: I see that they&#x27;ve collected data for this poll in China. I can&#x27;t believe that strangers cold-calling people in China and asking them whether they trust the government is going to produce data of any value at all.

Perhaps one time where I’m glad many old folks call the shots…maybe as puppets of the wealthy but still.

Well the public is very stupid. I say this as a complete moron who is part of this public. The amount of bad opinions I’ve had is astounding.<p>I hope AI replaces all of education so that’s my level of comfort with it. Which is to say not comfortable at all, so let it do education.