• paultimate14@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • zlatko@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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.

      • paultimate14@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        11 hours ago

        https://fedia.io/m/technology@lemmy.world/t/2531490/-/comment/11832636

        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.