this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
49 points (91.5% liked)
Technology
86302 readers
3756 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’m skeptical when AI leaders and big tech are behind it. They want to be part of the discussion to make sure their AI business remains protected and becomes cemented as one of the few solutions allowed to operate.
Have you actually read their statement? It's rather short. https://www.wemustactnow.ai/
None of that questions if we should be building AI in the first place.
Who stands to benefit when AI is developed and has massive consequences on society? I think it is mainly capitalists and global elite benefiting and society losing out.
Also no mention of the environmental destruction that is needed to build and run AI.
This is corporate propaganda. It very likely won't. It hasn't improved meaningfully in the last several years. All the "breakthroughs" have been around agentic harnesses and not the models themselves.
Either way, we've had models that are good enough to support the actual real world use cases for LLMs since some time last year.
Having people think progress is about to explode is benefiting share holders.
Well point 1is classic salesman ship. "Investors, get in on the ground floor, this thing is going to the moon".
Also in labour relations "Unions, workers accept this worse deal for you or swear on my grandma's grave we replace you with soon to be super powerful AI".
There is no way of knowing will or will not LLMs radically improve and lead to radical change. Since we have no way of knowing does someone say resolve the hallucinating and being confidently wrong issues. Not atleast with current probability models, since that random number throw (that is necessary for the whole thing to work) has that chance to land bad. There is no way without fundamentally different base model to give hard orders like "never do that". There is always the chance 1% and 0,1% throws happen.