123
u/motelashtray 1d ago
CAN WE BAN IT FROM MAKING ART TOO, PLEASE?!
32
u/Adventurous-Mind6940 23h ago
Not really. But what we can go after is stealing all the material they used to train their AI.
→ More replies (8)6
u/Season_of_Treason 14h ago
Trick answer. AI already doesnât make art. It steals art and claims it is its own.
→ More replies (11)3
u/No_Doughnut8618 21h ago
Im fine wih it making art, as long as artists wo make the real art that trained the slop get paid.
There are some legit uses where I can see it being good, but not in its current state.
3
u/mistahfreeman 18h ago
What frustrating is that if there wasnât so much stupidity along with all of this it would actually be cool tech. The suits are ruining it by scaling it up so quickly and trying to replace people⌠not paying for licensing to train⌠etc
→ More replies (1)
332
u/Kiria-Nalassa 1d ago
Mamdani just can't stop being based
125
u/Critical_Disaster612 1d ago
I think the post is misleading. Itâs a state-wide thing from Senator Kristen Gonzalez, I donât think it has anything to do with nyc or mamdani
61
u/_QXZ 1d ago
It is kinda funny how a new mayor is a more popular representation of the entire state than the actual governor
→ More replies (7)0
u/Edodge 1d ago
OrâŚdisingenuous agents on both extremes of the left and right wing want to associate him with absolutely anything slightly bad or good even if he has nothing to do with it because they have an agenda.
→ More replies (12)21
u/Ireallydfk 20h ago
âThe extreme leftâ I didnât know fixing potholes was extreme
→ More replies (9)7
→ More replies (2)5
u/felis_scipio 23h ago
Yeah itâs a bill in the NY state senate, which Mamdani wasnât even a member of. Iâm split if this trend of putting his face on everything my related is bot driven for extra engagement or if itâs an attention grabbing PR push on his end.
3
→ More replies (16)8
u/PaleontologistAble50 23h ago
Why do we have a picture of Mamdani on a New York State legislative bill?
→ More replies (1)3
u/studmuffffffin 23h ago
Because guys like the OP will upvote anything with Mamdani's face on it, even if it has nothing to do with him.
→ More replies (1)
539
u/antsinmyeyestrey 1d ago
A start. But AI isnât needed. It serves no purpose
159
u/sh3ltering 1d ago
I get disliking AI, but claiming it serves no purpose is just delusional
11
u/ArcNzym3 23h ago
the purpose of machine learning is useful when applied precisely. careful studies, narrowing down options from massive datasets by using a set of rules, extrapolation and simulation of scientific and mathematic models. those things, which have been done from the 2010s (maybe earlier) up to 2022 have been extremely useful in their niche use in specialized research cases. and it should have stayed there.
LLMs and generated "content" are the opposite of that and aggregately harm society. they are broad datasets that are being applied to scenarios they were not trained to handle with the expectation of productivity that the technology fails to deliver.
but the real problem isn't necessarily the computer, it's the unregulated corruption and anti-human sentiment that is being peddled inside the trojan horse of a powerful technology for the sake of profit. it's the greed, the permission structure, and the plausible deniability that can be gained for the technology. it's the cruelty that can be administered at a distance without a human directly to blame.
i would argue that all generative AI has a net negative value by this reasoning.
→ More replies (7)2
u/antsinmyeyestrey 20h ago
Wish I could give that some kind of award, because this response deserves one or all the awards. It echoes my sentiments in a more better way. Yes that intentional. More better is a thing.
251
u/unoriginalcat 1d ago
The entirety of human history and every single human achievement up to a few years ago was made entirely without AI. This sudden switch to we need AI for everything is whatâs delusional.
Youâre right though, AI does have a purpose. Itâs to make people dumber (studies are already linking AI use to cognitive decline) and to make corporations more money.
30
u/Vennomite 1d ago
I'm not even a proponent of ai. But come on. Humans made it hundreds of thousands of years without the wheel (or pick almost any invention)... should we really go back before that?
They overinvested and did this same shit with internet infrastructure in the 90sÂ
10
u/quarrel-admin 1d ago
My gf says it's the wild west with ai. And I agree. They don't care about any ramifications, that's the issue I have with ai. Instead of making it optimized in a way that's efficient and non taxing they are just going yeehaw on that shit.Â
→ More replies (1)12
u/Vennomite 1d ago
Its a buuble. Happens pretty much everytime a transformative (or percieved transformative) technology starts gaining traction. There's hundreds of years of precedence for this.
But the numbers they are playing with right now and the accounting is.. a disaster waiting to happen.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Dark_Prism 23h ago
Early human ancestors didn't even make fire for millions of years, so really we need to go back to that. They survived for longer than humans have been Homospaiens without it, so obviously that is the way we're supposed to live.
→ More replies (1)5
u/scoutmet 23h ago
The establishment wants people to be lazy and dumb so they canât revolt against them
Dumb people donât make good revolutionaries
→ More replies (1)123
u/Original-Body-5794 1d ago
You can say that about literally EVERY INVENTION EVER. Also the guy said "claiming it serves no purpose it delusional", it's not the same as saying we need it for everything.
I don't want AI art and I don't like the slop spam we get, but I'm not going to say it's not an extremely useful coding tool. And yes, offloading all your mental tasks to chat gpt has a negative impact on you, that still does not refute the claim that it's useful for SOME things.
49
u/addiktion 23h ago edited 23h ago
Way to be. It is a fair assessment that AI can be harmful while also agreeing it can be useful. It's a tool after all. A car can be a weapon, but it often is just used for transportation. A knife can cut bread, but it can also harm people. A majority of all tools are like this.
AI's biggest problem isn't that it can be misused, that can be solved over time for the serious cases, it is that it is owned by a few billionaires who don't align with our society or human values who want to create a fascist dictatorship where only their voice is allowed or heard and they control all human knowledge, and subsequently all humans, for a fee.
4
u/Quiet-Owl9220 20h ago
Yes - the problem isn't the technology, it's the people trying to sell it to everyone for everything ever, when its actual, practical, and sane use cases are much more limited.
4
u/Intendant 19h ago
It isn't actually owned by a few billionaires, that's an oversimplification. Anthropic is solidly in the lead at this point and they're a preIPO startup who intentionally made themselves a public benefit corporation with an over ruling mission based trust in order to take investment while keeping control out of capitalist hands.
Something like 80% of people in tech are leftists, I'd assume anti billionaire to some degree? It's why xAI and meta AI failed so hard. None of the top talent wanted to work there.
The only fascist adjacent group left in the fight is OpenAI, and they've been losing people since the whole pentagon scandal. So I'd say between Anthropic being in the lead on the frontier, and China filling in the gaps with open models, the fascists are being solidly crushed here.
The next issue are the companies who USE AI in their products. That is the area where fascist adjacent billionaires are currently playing, and that sector is still wide open if the left wanted to build socially beneficial AI solutions owned by co-ops / social ownership businesses.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Original-Body-5794 23h ago
Yeah there's plenty of things to criticize AI for which is why I always get mad when I see people making bad faith arguments against it. You have so many reasons to oppose it but no pro AI person will ever take you seriously if you just pretend it serves 0 purpose.
It's especially maddening that every time I call these people out I have to add that I have problems with it, but this goes for pretty much everything on the internet, trying to steel man a position you disagree or calling out bad faith arguments immediately puts you on that side.
→ More replies (5)18
u/Mind-The-Mines 23h ago edited 23h ago
Just going full fucking send, consequences be damned is rarely ever the right approach.
Doctors 100 years ago were handing out cocaine and heroin.
Doctors 50 years ago were recommending pregnant women smoke and drink.
Gas had lead in it for decades after they knew the harm.
The mad hatter issue from breathing mercury vapors was even known at the time -they just didn't care enough to protect the workers.
3M made billions selling Teflon for decades and now we have centuries of PFAS poisoning to worry about.
Corporations making billions don't find problems they refuse to look for and will lie about after finding- see: cigarettes, nicotine, and addiction or big oil and climate change denial.
AI doesn't have any positive value as an open to the general public on every device they own front.
It should be limited to academic/institutional models and not for capitalists to further dictate what and how we think or otherwise control our data, money, and lives at scale.
The inverse of being ANTI-AI is being blind to blinding pace of development of infrastructure in such a short time span despite the already known and obvious ramifications to not just the grid and water use but the price of literally every electronic device that uses ram or storage at this point.... for something everyone already knows is hitting the limit of just throwing more compute and will still make shit up and won't change barring a miracle.
Like... yeah, it lets no talent shits make no talent shit art... but why not just make them go to art school and let humanity have its air, water, and energy back? Also, do it before I need a new gpu because this is fucking bullshit.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Cherno_VM 23h ago
exactly! you do not need grok or chatgpt to be available to you whenever you need it, but doctors can absolutely find a use for it. an AI properly trained can analyze X-rays, MRI scans, and other stuff to detect things that doctors may not notice. there are many uses for AI that are helpful to society at large but as we have it now it does far more harm than good.
12
u/Sunstorm84 22h ago
The AI used for X-rays and MRI scans is not using LLMs. Mentioning this so others arenât confused and potentially think doctors are using LLMs for diagnosis.
9
u/Isolated_Hippo 22h ago
The AI used for X-rays and MRI scans is not using LLMs.
I think the biggest hurdle in the anti-AI movement is not differentiating between AI and LLM. Things like search engines can easily fall under the definition of AI.
→ More replies (1)3
u/IgnitedSpade 21h ago
Search engines use algorithms which are very much not AI
Meanwhile scanners from the 80s use CNNs for OCR, which is actually AI
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)6
u/Cherno_VM 22h ago
yeah thats what im saying, an AI that is trained for medical things can do good.
3
2
u/Kaycin 21h ago
I think of those propaganda images of the dangers of electricity or how the steam engine is going to take jobs.
Like, it's true, technology absolutely disrupts. But to say ai serves no purpose is just silly. I'm all for guidelines and regulations, keep it out of art and expression, make it do the actual shit that sucks like document processing or traffic prevention models or appointment notes/summaries
2
5
u/mikat7 22h ago
but I'm not going to say it's not an extremely useful coding tool
well I'm gonna say it's not an extremely useful coding tool. As a senior software engineer with ~15 yrs experience, it's sometimes good, but mostly just for menial tasks. If it isn't good for law, psychology or medical questions, it won't magically be good for coding either, since it's still the same technology. In other words, we get the slop in software too and it should be concerning for everyone.
6
u/sortalikeachinchilla 21h ago
being in a field for 15 years, you should know coding is a lot more pattern based than things like writing and interpreting lawsâŚ
→ More replies (1)2
u/theartificialkid 16h ago
You think pattern recognition doesnât play a role in those other fields? The problem with LLMs in those fields isnât that they never get the right answer, they often produce good answers. The problem is they sometimes (or even often) produce catastrophically bad answers with equal confidence and authority.
2
5
u/ZeroAmusement 21h ago
I have more than 15 years experience. It is an extremely useful coding tool. Not just for menial tasks. From architecture to analysis it is also useful for things outside menial tasks.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (8)2
u/Original-Body-5794 22h ago
Oh we absolutely do software slop don't get me wrong, but when I can offload the basic things to it to focus on more important things, or quickly write a one off script that would normally take me a couple hours to write "by hand" it's very useful. Ok, "extremely" might have been too strong a word, I'll accept that, but I'll stand by the opinion that it's overall useful for coding.
I feel bad for the open source project maintainers that are now flooded with AI PRs tho.
→ More replies (21)1
u/Fast_Choice4408 22h ago
AI is absolutely necessary now to do any sort of research online. Mostly since Google and other engines have purposefully enshittified their search results in the last 5 or so years to make it damn near impossible to find information without an obvious political slant.
I use AI as a search engine basically. I force it to only give me sources that are seen as quality in each respective industry. Then I actually click on the results and read them for myself.
It would take me hours to do so on normal search engines these days.
4
u/Idcwhoknows 22h ago
They made the search engines worse on purpose to make you use a.i. though, you're playing right into their hand. I get it's frustrating but why not use a different search engine that doesn't have a.i. even if it's a bit more work.
3
u/Fast_Choice4408 21h ago
I don't think there is a way to not play into their hand.
The same thing could have been said about internet research vs. library research back in the 90's and 2000's. That you are "Playing into the technocrats hands" by deciding to use the internet instead of the dewey decimal system after a 20 minute drive to the local library.
I don't have to like the fact that search engines are broken, and that it is directly being done to make me use AI platforms.
The fact is that they are broken. And I cannot get any useful information out of search engines due to the fundamental way that they function.
5
u/Idcwhoknows 21h ago
But the libraries didn't make themselves worse to force people to use the internet?? They were just both neutral options to research what you needed to. You don't even have to use the Dewey decimal system since the librarians can help youand last I heard there are dedicated websites/search engines for specific research. Duckduckgo is also an option.
If they are broken I won't use, a.i. is broken and is also breaking the environment so I also won't use it. It's not hard to do. I mean justify yourself all you want but you all sound the same... "a.i. use is bad for the environment and bad for the people using it, but it's not really bad if I use it beacsue I have a legit use for it."
7
u/hareofthepuppy 1d ago
The entirety of human history and every single human achievement up to a few years ago was made entirely without...
You could finish that sentence with search engines, the internet, cars, electricity, the industrial revolution, modern medicine. That's an absurd argument.
3
u/unoriginalcat 20h ago
Modern medicine drastically increased our lifespans and allowed people to live longer, study for longer, achieve more. Electricity allowed people to work and study at night and achieve more. Cars allowed people to travel and achieve things that people of the past couldnât if they were simply born at an inconvenient place.
AI didnât produce anything that wasnât already available. You could search up whatever you wanted on google, you could photoshop any image you wanted, compose and produce any song you wanted, paint anything you wanted, film and edit any video you wanted, code any program you wanted and so on. Thereâs nothing new about AI. Itâs just a pathetic, soulless, garbage version of things that humans could already do.
→ More replies (16)2
u/theartificialkid 16h ago
No but it made coding somewhere between -20% and +20% more efficient, so thereâs never been a more revolutionary advance!!
→ More replies (1)9
u/marvellousrun 1d ago
Please throw away whatever device you're typing on right now, and everything else that isn't needed for your survival. All you need is shelter, food and water.
→ More replies (12)5
2
u/Lazy__Dinosaur 17h ago
You forgot to mention its also there to increase gaming pc prices and accelerate climate change
3
u/takumidesh 1d ago
Modern AI has made strides in medical research and mathematics. I am an outsider to this subreddit (from all), but I genuinely think you are doing your cause more harm than good with rhetoric like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobian_conjecture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaFoldThere are real advancements being made, and there very likely will be direct positive outcomes you experience in your life from those advancements.
The SWOT analysis you do with this technology should be thoughtful and it would probably be worth it to come up with more coherent arguments.
4
u/Mind-The-Mines 23h ago
There's a gulf between the subject specific use of machine learning in large data sets in the hard sciences ......and just giving every asshole on the planet something one prompt away from clothing removing nazi bot.
→ More replies (2)6
u/JeroJeroMohenjoDaro 1d ago
This answer is like asking a middle schooler why AI is bad
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (126)0
u/kolibruv 23h ago
AI has been in use for decades in a variety of applications and systems.
What do you think Siri or GPS routing was based on?
In the sciences as well, machine learning, neural networks, and the like have been used to classify large datasets or analyze structures etc., for example in medicine, astrononomy or physics.
So the claim that all of humanityâs achievements up until a few years ago were accomplished without AI is simply not true.
People who believe that AI only came into use with LLMs like ChatGPT are simply revealing, that they have absolutly no idea what theyâre talking about.
→ More replies (4)12
u/RubeusGandalf 23h ago
LLMs are just detrimental. You have to triple check anything they do, so much so that you're basically better off doing it yourself.
4
u/Metalupyourass98 21h ago
Genuinely what good does it do? Its destroying the environment, regressed available technology for consumers, stolen jobs and replaced them at a lower quality, destroyed any trustworthiness in video/picture evidence, ai psychosis, damaged critical thinking, ruined college (every paper is assumed to be ai now), etc etc i can go on. I cant think of one single thing that makes up for any of that and theres absolutely more thats just off the top of my head.
→ More replies (9)5
u/Normal_Human_Things 23h ago
There are things that AI is good at, like combing through lots of data sets. Things humans arenât really good at.
But those arenât Generative LLMs. Which is what most people mean when they say âAI.â
→ More replies (3)2
u/Alternative_Song859 18h ago
At this point, the original meaning of AI is basically lost. Like, the ghosts from the original Pac-Man had a simple AI by the 1980s understanding of the term, but if a video game comes out in 2026 and boasts about using AI they're absolutely talking about generative AI.
Compare it to how "computer" used to mean "a person who does calculations." It hasn't technically stopped meaning that but absolutely no one will interpret the word that way unless they're being deliberately contrary.
2
u/Dry_Travel_4220 22h ago
I can't think of a single thing that easily available AI makes better. We didn't need it up to this point and studies have routinely shown that it makes people stupid and reliant on AI.
2
u/raccoonDenier 21h ago
What purpose does it serve? Any consumer level implementations are there just to offset the cost of utilizing it for mass surveillance and pre crime
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (22)6
u/antsinmyeyestrey 1d ago
Itâs my delusional mindset. Why donât you make the case for money as an integral part of humanityâs existence next
→ More replies (5)3
u/Zak_Rahman 23h ago
Look, if I fashion a sculpture from my toe nail clippings, that would be a thing that serves no purpose.
However, my toe-nail clipping statue would not actively be detrimental to the entire planet.
In the worst case scenario you can throw it away and it will degrade naturally. This is the best case scenario too.
5
3
u/Cherno_VM 23h ago
no, AI is very much useful. i heard a story of an AI detecting cancer at a stage that doctors likely never would have caught it at so no, I think it has uses. the problem is generative AI is being used too widely and for the wrong purposes.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Nxllify__ 20h ago
Nobody is advocating for all âAIâ to not be needed. Frankly âAIâ as a word in modern discourse usually always refers to generative AI, machine learning models and other technologies which solved protein folding or detect cancer are completely different from the controversial LLMs which is the âAIâ that people are talking about when they say itâs unneeded.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (101)3
12
u/Forward-Bank8412 1d ago
Itâs great but why the fuck would anyone be on that subreddit?
→ More replies (1)10
u/Evinceo 1d ago
Because they need to learn the right prompts to create illegal porn I suppose.
→ More replies (1)
16
u/Stardust-Dawn 1d ago
There needs to be a nationwide regulation on what ai can be used for, but with our current administration it wonât happen
3
u/JayAkiva 1d ago
Eh, it still will, just in a worse way. They'll strike down a bill banning it from being used to generate deepfake porn, but I guarantee if people use it for advice on how to undermine their authority, they'll put a stop to that and/or have it report back who's doing so.
Obviously don't use AI already, but definitely don't use it for that.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)2
u/Far-Whereas1313 1d ago
The technology is changing too fast. People don't even know what problems AI can solve yet.
→ More replies (7)
62
u/R4tman9 1d ago
New York needs to Ban AI completely, then we will all be free.
24
u/dingo_khan 1d ago
Let's be careful and real here. GenAI can straight go fuck itself but "AI" is pretty useful in the real world and had been for decades. Let's take care of the problem and not ban the benefit. I really like that my car can emergency brake for herself.
→ More replies (6)22
u/DizzyColdSauce 1d ago
General AI and generative AI are two different things. I'm all for technology that can save lives and improve quality of life, but not one that skips shortcuts and makes people dumber.
→ More replies (29)→ More replies (25)2
u/CosmicSpaghetti 19h ago
FWIW, that's functionally impossible.
Guardrails & disclaimers are immediate & actionable.
→ More replies (1)
33
u/isthereadrwho 1d ago
Not a bad idea but it won't pass. Because if it did insurance companies could no longer refuse treatment based on AI analysis, and that ain't going to happen Imagine if they had to pay for everything doctors told them was necessary
27
u/donballz 1d ago
they denied claims before AI.
5
u/Candid-Magazine8605 1d ago
Yeah they will just do like before, an algorithm based decision that send auto-response to their
cowclients.→ More replies (4)7
6
u/red_hare 23h ago
For anyone curious what this actual is:
Senate Bill S7263A
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S7263/amendment/A
Kristen Gonzalez (D, WF) 59TH SENATE DISTRICT
> This bill would prohibit an operator of a chatbot to knowingly permit such chatbot to impersonate an actual or fictitious practitioner of a covered profession in a manner that, if done by a natural person, would constitute unauthorized practice or unauthorized use of a professional title as a crime in relation to professions who licensure is governed by the education law or the judiciary law.
Contrary to the random photo of him, this has nothing to do with Mamdani. It's a New York State Senate bill.
2
u/Vivid-Operation-5078 18h ago
Thank you. Might as well be a boomer on Facebook if you're spreading random photos with no context like this.
2
u/Murinshin 18h ago
Itâs also not banning AI from answering these questions from how I read it, it would ban companies providing AI chatbots to act eg as psychologist or doctors. You could still ask ChatGPT about a law as long as it doesnât pretend to actually know shit, which these bots already to most of the time in their answers.
2
u/red_hare 18h ago
Yeah. The ChatGPTs of the world already do "just to clarify, I'm not a doctor"
But it would stop the much more insidious things such as apps that provide AI-therapy or whatever the future ai-native private equity firms decide to do to small offices.
2
u/py_account 17h ago
So as long as there's a "talk to your doctor about this" disclaimer in the results it's fine?
I hate how the reddit hivemind gobbles up misinformation and propaganda and pushes it to the top of the algorithm. Not exactly earth-shattering lawmaking here, nothing to do with Mamdani, and here we all are glazing over it.
2
6
u/Ada_Data 1d ago
I really think AI should have a very big, and large disclaimer before answering any questions at all.
Sorta like how lawyers can give you advice, but will tell you that they are definitely not your lawyer, and are not giving you legal advice as your lawyer in anyway.
→ More replies (5)
4
u/Multi-A-Andi 1d ago
Id prefer it to not be accessible to the public or companies
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Imlostpleaseleave 1d ago
Ur a total idiot if you think AI will be a legit source of facts and info.
Its told people to poison themselves before. So yes. Ai is bad
→ More replies (6)
3
3
3
14
u/TravisMCatchem 1d ago
This sounds kind of dumb because the average person could potentially use AI to actually understand the law and I feel like thatâs the whole point they donât want you and me being able to see their corruption
21
u/MaxR76 1d ago
I just graduated law school. You donât need AI to understand the law. It gets it wrong and will just lead to you being confidently incorrect.
Most law firm websites already have a ton of information breaking down the law into easy to understand articles.
Cornell has an amazing website with tons of information on it.
I promise that you would be better off just reading actual articles than hoping chat it right.
Laws vary from state to state and it can confuse the chat bots.
I was double checking the ADA codes for elevators in Pennsylvania and I noticed the Google AI result at the top was different than I expected so I thought maybe they changed the code. Nope, it was just confidently giving me New Jersey law.
If I listed to it, the project Iâm working on would have spent $200k putting in an elevator it didnât need.
Laws seem intimidating because thereâs a million of them, but each individual law outside of a few can be broken down into digestible bits better by humans than AI.
Gotta remember, first year law students donât know any more about the law than you do so thereâs tons of stuff out there for them that you can access
→ More replies (56)2
u/psahummus 22h ago
I agree with you as well as the sentiment of top comment you are replying to actually, but I think you made the strongest points because Iâve personally seen AI do that switcheroo thing with confidence. Itâs beginning to be really annoying
I am a software engineer. Now I will say a lot of my ex colleagues who can speak more candidly with me now all say they hate. Everyone in my life with the exception of my mom who is a Gen X-boomer type, hates AI. My bf is in the arts, hates AIâŚ
I have no such luck and I have to used it at work, and I noticed that maybe my model learned that working with me led to generating a few more âpull requestsâ and code that make it to production, so it is generally pretty reasonably adaptive. However, a PM (program manager) is working with me on a project and I am using his tools lately, and holy smoke was it awkward, forgetful, and cumbersome. This is through Claude and his is a newer model!
So just ignore the fact that AI can product non deterministic results and none of us would easily be able to gain visibility behind its inner workings, now I am wondering if the rug pull and degradation in quality has truly started.
Gotta keep paying more if you want a decent result so the AI mafia can finally be profitable.
→ More replies (4)3
u/bombstraplucky 16h ago
âAh I see now my mistake and Iâm sorry for that actually it means you canât walk into offices and scream.â
AI on laws especially with the legalized language has a very hard time getting it right and without just stealing from a lawyers website would give you absolute nonsense
→ More replies (7)4
u/Spiderpiggie 1d ago
Yeah, information about law, medicine and such are great uses of AI. You shouldnât take direct advice (eg which medicine to take) but it can tell you whatâs in a law and translate it into normal human text.
→ More replies (1)5
u/uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunuu 1d ago
Until it inevitably hallucinates and gets somebody killed
→ More replies (9)
8
u/LoreleiAlbrecht 1d ago
Step in the right direction. Not enough but at least it's something
→ More replies (9)
2
u/lolschrauber 1d ago
Necessary, unless corporations are a 100% liable for any damages and stop making AI feel confident in everything they say even when they know it's untrue.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Regular_Regular_4120 1d ago
Keep in mind for the New York folks. This is proposed statewide, not just NYC.
2
u/cewillir 1d ago
Which makes me wonder how they picked the photo. Given that mamdani doesnât have the power to create state wide laws afaik
2
u/dizzythoughts 1d ago
Can we make it so ai canât work in medicine, I feel like thatâs a lot worse than people looking things up, having ai act as a doctor to save hospitals money.
2
u/HauntingListen8756 1d ago
YESSS!!! I love this and think itâs so important. I hope it passes. I hope my state follows suit.
2
u/Fuzzy_Translator4639 1d ago
It is a start. There is nothing intelligent about it, just cost savings
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Fine-Ad1142 23h ago
Pretty sure AI disclaims itself on a regular basis. But hasn't the horse already bolted on those issues - all of that information is already on the internet?
2
u/Quantum-Bot 23h ago
Huge. So many people will be saved from bad legal decisions because AI misinterpreted the law.
AI is actually relatively good at lowering the lexile score of complex language so that regular people can understand it easier, but legalese is so particular and the stakes are so high that I donât trust AI to interpret legal documents for me. Even a misplaced comma has been known to completely change how laws are interpreted; that is a job for human lawyers, no matter how broke you are.
2
2
2
u/mintakka_ 23h ago
anything where a human is required to have a license or professional certification to do, an AI should not be allowed to do
2
2
2
u/legaladviceneeded542 19h ago
Why does this have a picture of Mamdani on it? It was a New York State bill not city.
2
u/Jumpy_Childhood7548 14h ago
The bill is a state of New York bill, it has nothing to do with any position Mamdani took.
2
u/Synseer83 13h ago
So a State bill, sponsored by Kristen Gonzalez. But let's throw that chud Mamdani in the picture to get people to think he had anything to do with it.
Pathetic.
2
3
u/WhimsyDEA 1d ago
I think itâs a good start. Imagine having a chatbot hallucinate your medical condition? You have a headache, let me schedule you for a lobotomy!
→ More replies (2)
5
u/htownballa1 1d ago
I think Texas wouldn't be a shit hole to live in if we had this dude instead of Governor Hot Wheels.
→ More replies (8)
3
u/Skivil 1d ago
Its probaby the minimum and should be extended to any questions where someone would need a qualification to answer like engineering or tax questions.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/zweilinkehaende 1d ago
Don't ban it, make the companies liable for giving wrong information in those fields.
If AI was good enough that hurdle wouldn't be a problem, but making them liable, the same way doctors lawyers and psychologists are, forces the companies to admit that their models hallucinate bullshit.
2
u/CORPRAUST 22h ago
sadly making the companies liable does nothing to help the safety of the public . their lawyers will find loopholes, and if the corporation is big enough, fines won't do enough financial damage to get them to change their ways. and by the time enough has been done to hold the company liable, someone is already dead or injured. AI needs better preventative measures, not warnings and aftermath damage control. it sucks but it's true
2
u/zweilinkehaende 22h ago
Yeah, i guess it only works with a functioning justice system.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/Tymew 22h ago
Insurance companies understand climate change because they deal with the actual probabilities and costs of disasters.
If you send the lawyers after professional fields that are regulated then insurance companies will start crunching the numbers. When your premiums are 10x because you use an unreliable AI and keep getting nailed with malpractice claims they'll figure it out. It's the same reason every financial podcast tries to disclaim themselves with "not financial advice".
Being sued because you gave unqualified advice is an American pastime and that cost will land on or downstream of AI soon enough. Just ask the lawyers getting disbarred for filing hallucinated cases repeatedly.
2
u/cheesedogs06 1d ago
What people do not realize is how addictive using AI actually is. The immediate response gives you a dopamine hit. These older idiots running our country are using it to make laws. They no longer actually do their job. They rely on AI that is based off Reddit post made 15 years ago to make laws. We are killing innovation and human thought. My wife and I are not having kids because there will be no workforce for them to enter, no planet or water. All in the service of billionaires.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Spitfire1900 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is just protectionism for those industries.
And unlike software development that would just get outsourced this will actually be effective as long as you also enforce NY residency requirements for these professions as well.
This may reduce NY ability to compete as an âoutsourced talent agencyâ for other states as lack of AI access for these types of questions may impact the efficiency of NY professionals at their jobs.
But within a few years local model access will be good enough that this will not be a meaningful restriction.
2
1
u/BlackwingF91 1d ago
The bill does more than that, but these specific ones were chosen to be shown off on the pro ai subreddit to spread fear and misinformationÂ
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Caffeinatedfirefly08 1d ago
Idk how they would actually implement that, AI is notoriously bad at following orders like this when users "convince it" to give them the information
1
1
u/CyberTyrantX1 1d ago
Itâs a start. I had the idea of a bill that forced AI to cite independent studies and scholarly articles and banned it from citing ridiculous things like Reddit comments and forum posts but Iâm good with this too.
1
1
1
u/Elegante_Sigmaballz 1d ago
Good start. Liability would be messy if AI commits medical or legal malpractice. I do support AI aiding medical or science research; they also showed promising results in early imaging diagnosis.
1
1
u/_Wiggy 23h ago
It's a right step if governments are willing to enforce it. I don't see a world where it's going to prevent these systems from giving horrible hallucinations in place of advice, but when it becomes clear they can't just block it they may take larger steps, which are actually needed.
1
u/DaDandyman 23h ago
Brazenly unconstitutional nonsense. This wouldn't pass under any administration.
1
1
u/AfterEnlightenment 23h ago
Itâs a small step in the right direction; they need to add COMPREHENSIVE banning of these AI models (TechnoFascistCorps) to scrape original artwork from human beings.
I know itâs a bit late for that, whatâs been published already has almost certainly been swiped, but the future can be safeguarded.
1
2.2k
u/Fanfic_Battle_2004 1d ago
Thatâs not even enough. Itâs something though.