Some of the marginalized groups most likely to be harmed by AI are also most wary of it. A new study’s findings raise questions about equity and consent in technology design.
The thing is, EVERYONE hates AI except for a very small number of executives and the few tech people who are falling for the bullshit the same way so many fell for crypto.
It’s like saying a survey indicates that trans people are more likely to hate American ISP’s. Everyone hates them and trans people are underrepresented in the population of ISP shareholders and executives. It doesn’t say anything about the trans community. It doesn’t provide any actionable or useful information.
It’s stating something uninteresting but applying a coat of rainbow paint to try to get clicks and engagement.
The average person is not informed enough to even be aware of the problems with AI. Look at how aggressively AI is being marketed, and realize that this marketing works.
On a tangent, to me as an outsider it seems that most Americans are more likely to view anything as negative. I have no scientific backing for my shitpost though.
We could argue all day over who is experiencing reality or who is in an echo chamber.
We could, or you could read the article where it addresses exactly that point. Most demographics are slightly positive on AI, with some neutral and only nonbinary people as slightly negative. The representative US sample is at 4.5/7.
You might be living in an echo chamber. Most Americans use AI at least sometimes and plenty use it regularly according to studies.
You literally are right here accusing me of being in an echo chamber for thinking Americans view AI negatively, then when I back that up with a source you are now… Claiming that the article says that.
Except that the whole “most demographics are positive on AI” piece that you toss in counters your own countering of my disagreement. You’re talking in circles here.
It’s also worth noting this article is using a sample size of 700 and doesn’t go all that heavily into the methodology. The author describes themself as a “social computing scholar” and states that they purposefully oversampled these minority groups.
The conclusion is nothing but wasted time and clicks. You’re in this thread telling people to “read the article” and I’m in here to warn people that it’s not worth their time to do so.
And this is part of a trend I’ve noticed on Lemmy lately: people posting obviously bad articles, users commenting that the articles are bad, and usually about 3-4 other users in the comments arguing and trying to drive more engagement to the article. More clicks, more ad revenue.
The thing is, EVERYONE hates AI except for a very small number of executives and the few tech people who are falling for the bullshit the same way so many fell for crypto.
It’s like saying a survey indicates that trans people are more likely to hate American ISP’s. Everyone hates them and trans people are underrepresented in the population of ISP shareholders and executives. It doesn’t say anything about the trans community. It doesn’t provide any actionable or useful information.
It’s stating something uninteresting but applying a coat of rainbow paint to try to get clicks and engagement.
The average person is not informed enough to even be aware of the problems with AI. Look at how aggressively AI is being marketed, and realize that this marketing works.
You might be living in an echo chamber. Most Americans use AI at least sometimes and plenty use it regularly according to studies.
We could argue all day over who is experiencing reality or who is in an echo chamber.
Pew Research found that US adults who are not “AI Experts” are more likely to view AI as negative and harmful.
On a tangent, to me as an outsider it seems that most Americans are more likely to view anything as negative. I have no scientific backing for my shitpost though.
We could, or you could read the article where it addresses exactly that point. Most demographics are slightly positive on AI, with some neutral and only nonbinary people as slightly negative. The representative US sample is at 4.5/7.
https://fedia.io/m/technology@lemmy.world/t/2531490/-/comment/11832636
You literally are right here accusing me of being in an echo chamber for thinking Americans view AI negatively, then when I back that up with a source you are now… Claiming that the article says that.
Except that the whole “most demographics are positive on AI” piece that you toss in counters your own countering of my disagreement. You’re talking in circles here.
It’s also worth noting this article is using a sample size of 700 and doesn’t go all that heavily into the methodology. The author describes themself as a “social computing scholar” and states that they purposefully oversampled these minority groups.
The conclusion is nothing but wasted time and clicks. You’re in this thread telling people to “read the article” and I’m in here to warn people that it’s not worth their time to do so.
And this is part of a trend I’ve noticed on Lemmy lately: people posting obviously bad articles, users commenting that the articles are bad, and usually about 3-4 other users in the comments arguing and trying to drive more engagement to the article. More clicks, more ad revenue.
No, it’s interesting.