| AI 08:01 - Jun 10 with 3658 views | DJR |
Following on from Sam Coates' revelation that ChatGPT was completely mispresenting one of his podcasts, this seems a rather worrying finding.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/09/apple-artificial-intelligence
We appear to be rushing headlong into AI without really knowing whether it is wise or whether there are adequate safeguards in place. We also seem to be cavalier about its impact on things like jobs. And we seem completely dismissive of concerns about the vast amounts of energy and land needed for data centres. [Post edited 10 Jun 8:06]
|  | | |  |
| AI on 11:32 - Jun 10 with 878 views | positivity |
| AI on 11:27 - Jun 10 by Bluecoin |
Don't worry, might not impact the people who spent all their time arguing with strangers on Football Forums! You're in the clear! |
there's a few absolute coins on here using ai to create nonsensical posts already... |  |
| |
| AI on 11:37 - Jun 10 with 861 views | bsw72 |
| AI on 10:29 - Jun 10 by EddyJ |
So say those 1M drivers are reduced to 200k. As you say, we still need some drivers, particularly where loading and unloading is required. In another decade, the loading an unloading will mainly be done by robots, drones etc... So another chunk of jobs will go then.
Tools are coming along that can do the work of junior software engineers. So lets say there is a 50% reduction in the number of software engineering jobs.
We might not need GPs anymore, only specialist doctors. GPs are essentially gatekeepers to the specialists and their job is relatively easy to automate. So there is a reduction in the number of doctors required.
AIs are already very good at replicating the work of lawyers. Lets half the number of them required.
Artists, writers, pretty much any creative industry. They are going to be decimated. Hollywood films will use AI for most of their special effects.
You can go through most industries and see the same pattern.
Yes, there will be some new jobs created. But not on anywhere near the same scale as the rate they are being lost.
What AI does is consolidate the wealth of those who own the AI and remove employment from those who don't. This will further the wealth gap between the haves and have-nots. And its silly. What AI should do is enable people to work less whilst enjoying a similar or better lifestyle. But that is not the direction capitalism is taking us in. [Post edited 10 Jun 10:29]
|
Wow, so you're saying that jobs will go by 50-80% based on your figures below and industries will be decimated, just to counter on a few things, noting I have a bias in favour of AI, as I work in Tech and am heavily involved in AI / LLM architecture and development at my organisation.
The numbers of junior software engineers is not reducing, in fact in my company (120K+ employees globally, 9K tech staff) we are seeing developer demand grow and output increase. Also seeing the growth of citizen development where "business" colleagues are now getting more involved in product development, leveraging AI. Tech roles are increasing, as are business/tech hybrid roles. My company is not unique - I regularly meet with peers across my industry (Tech / FInancial Services) who are seeing the same.
We already have a shortage of GPs, so surely anything to ease the load on the existing is a good thing? Lawyers the same - AI can handle the churn while allowing the remainder to specialise on the more complex, not a bad thing.
The creative industry has always been threatened by technology, yet continues to evolve and develop with it - take CGI, been around for years and has grown into a huge part of the industry. Had the pleasure of meeting with Michael Stein a couple of years ago when he was CTO at Framestore, he (unsurprisingly) is a big advocate of how best to combine AI into the creative world - there does need to be controls.
As for your last statement, I can now deliver a number of regualr activities far quicker than I could two years through effective use of our in house LLM, and that has enabled me to start focussing on more complex issues/challenges that historically would have not had the same level of focus - my team size has remained the same, but instead of working 12+ hours per day, am now working around 10 hours daily.
Likewise I am using it at home to assist with household budgeting, shopping etc again giving me more time on other things like gardening etc which it cannot assist with.
It is a long way from perfect and needs to be managed and governed, it can provide significant benefit . . . . as for the consolidation of wealth - that is not a new thing with AI, that is just capitalism vs socialism. |  | | |
| AI on 11:40 - Jun 10 with 843 views | bsw72 |
| AI on 10:53 - Jun 10 by Herbivore |
Brought to you by Chat GPT. |
Yes - I am just an AI bot obviously.
I do use AI and the internet to validate my data and help my iunderstanding - but the views/words are mine.
Why waste time when you can use available tools to help simplify what you want to do? | | | |
| AI on 11:43 - Jun 10 with 835 views | bsw72 |
Classic mis-use of AI, not understanding the potential for error and bias and not double checking the output, just lazy use of a tool.
This is why the danger of it replacing people is blown out of proportion currently . . . | | | |
| AI on 11:55 - Jun 10 with 800 views | thebooks |
| AI on 11:43 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
Classic mis-use of AI, not understanding the potential for error and bias and not double checking the output, just lazy use of a tool.
This is why the danger of it replacing people is blown out of proportion currently . . . |
Yes, but this is one of the problems with ChatGPT, for example. It encourages that laziness by purporting to be able to answer any question and presenting the output as “true” in natural, “intelligent” language.
It needs to do that in order to get us all using it. In that respect it’s like crypto — a scam. It’s not intelligent and can make very basic factual errors. |  | | |
| AI on 11:57 - Jun 10 with 789 views | EddyJ |
| AI on 11:37 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
Wow, so you're saying that jobs will go by 50-80% based on your figures below and industries will be decimated, just to counter on a few things, noting I have a bias in favour of AI, as I work in Tech and am heavily involved in AI / LLM architecture and development at my organisation.
The numbers of junior software engineers is not reducing, in fact in my company (120K+ employees globally, 9K tech staff) we are seeing developer demand grow and output increase. Also seeing the growth of citizen development where "business" colleagues are now getting more involved in product development, leveraging AI. Tech roles are increasing, as are business/tech hybrid roles. My company is not unique - I regularly meet with peers across my industry (Tech / FInancial Services) who are seeing the same.
We already have a shortage of GPs, so surely anything to ease the load on the existing is a good thing? Lawyers the same - AI can handle the churn while allowing the remainder to specialise on the more complex, not a bad thing.
The creative industry has always been threatened by technology, yet continues to evolve and develop with it - take CGI, been around for years and has grown into a huge part of the industry. Had the pleasure of meeting with Michael Stein a couple of years ago when he was CTO at Framestore, he (unsurprisingly) is a big advocate of how best to combine AI into the creative world - there does need to be controls.
As for your last statement, I can now deliver a number of regualr activities far quicker than I could two years through effective use of our in house LLM, and that has enabled me to start focussing on more complex issues/challenges that historically would have not had the same level of focus - my team size has remained the same, but instead of working 12+ hours per day, am now working around 10 hours daily.
Likewise I am using it at home to assist with household budgeting, shopping etc again giving me more time on other things like gardening etc which it cannot assist with.
It is a long way from perfect and needs to be managed and governed, it can provide significant benefit . . . . as for the consolidation of wealth - that is not a new thing with AI, that is just capitalism vs socialism. |
I manage a development team in one of the UK's largest software companies.
Publically, the message is "AI is not replacing you. It will allow you to learn new skills. You'll be paid more. It will do the boring work you don't like doing."
Behind closed doors, the conversation is about reduction of workforce. Either through redundancies or not backfilling leavers.
Ultimately, what senior leaders are judged on is metrics like revenue, profit growth and share price. They will use AI to hire fewer people and reduce wages.
I'm not opposed to AI. It has the potential to massively increase everyone's quality of life. The genie is also out of the bottle, so we can't stop it. But we need to make sure that everyone benefits from it, not just the few.
Take Thatcher closing mines in the north of England. Those mines probably needed to close at some point. They weren't cost effective and coal is not environmentally friendly. I don't think we should keep them open for the sake of keeping people employed. But the mistake Thatcher made is to not invest in alternative industries in the north. So we've ended up with a huge wealth divide between the north and south. AI is going to do the same thing at a much larger scale, globally. | | | |
| AI on 11:59 - Jun 10 with 773 views | Herbivore |
| AI on 11:40 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
Yes - I am just an AI bot obviously.
I do use AI and the internet to validate my data and help my iunderstanding - but the views/words are mine.
Why waste time when you can use available tools to help simplify what you want to do? |
Do you not have any concerns about the environmental impact of generative AI? Using it to do stuff like shopping lists when that's a 5 minute job seems somewhat unethical to me. |  |
| |
| AI on 14:34 - Jun 10 with 672 views | bsw72 |
| AI on 11:59 - Jun 10 by Herbivore |
Do you not have any concerns about the environmental impact of generative AI? Using it to do stuff like shopping lists when that's a 5 minute job seems somewhat unethical to me. |
I have concerns, but about the wider environment full stop, AI is only part of it.
Me not using it is not going to stop the rapid progress and demand which AI generates, what I am for is cleaner energy sources to meet this level of demand which is only going to increase exponentially.
Shopping lists is a simplification of one of my tasks. It analyzes what we order and when, what is in the fridge and therefore what we need added or removed weekly - it actually has reduced food waste, which I see as a partial offset to the energy.
I hope that no-one thinks that not using AI is going to make the world greener, that cat left the bag several years ago as MS, Amazon etc set up their data centres. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| AI on 14:52 - Jun 10 with 651 views | bsw72 |
| AI on 11:55 - Jun 10 by thebooks |
Yes, but this is one of the problems with ChatGPT, for example. It encourages that laziness by purporting to be able to answer any question and presenting the output as “true” in natural, “intelligent” language.
It needs to do that in order to get us all using it. In that respect it’s like crypto — a scam. It’s not intelligent and can make very basic factual errors. |
Ah, now the debate about the word intelligence is a different thing, as there is no single agreed definition for it, and when you start to discuss human intellect it further muddies the water.
So called clever people still make basic errors, are they not intelligent . . . | | | |
| AI on 14:59 - Jun 10 with 631 views | Herbivore |
| AI on 14:34 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
I have concerns, but about the wider environment full stop, AI is only part of it.
Me not using it is not going to stop the rapid progress and demand which AI generates, what I am for is cleaner energy sources to meet this level of demand which is only going to increase exponentially.
Shopping lists is a simplification of one of my tasks. It analyzes what we order and when, what is in the fridge and therefore what we need added or removed weekly - it actually has reduced food waste, which I see as a partial offset to the energy.
I hope that no-one thinks that not using AI is going to make the world greener, that cat left the bag several years ago as MS, Amazon etc set up their data centres. |
But AI isn't just a part of it, it's potentially a huge part of it. It's all well and good saying you're for cleaner energy, but we've already seen examples of fossil fuel burning power stations being proposed, maintained, or reopened to meet the massive energy needs of large data centres. A couple of said examples are below (one is about Bitcoin processing which is another car crash but the principle is the same given both require loads of processing power and are energy hungry). It's like doing loads of short haul flights every year and saying you care about the environment and support greener flying. You have to deal with the realities of what is happening in the here and now rather than on what could potentially happen.
I get that the impact of one individual not doing stuff is very small, but when enough people reject things that damage the environment then it reduces demand for those things and we do start to make a bit of a difference. AI doesn't just consume lots of energy, it also uses lots of water in the cooling systems used in these massive data centres. The increase in data centre energy consumption since the introduction of generative AI (see link below) warrants more than a shrug of the shoulders, imo. I get you have skin in the game but I don't think concerns about the various impacts of AI should be so readily dismissed.
https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117
https://www.wpr.org/news/power-wisconsin-data-centers-gas-plants-pollution-highe
https://grist.org/energy/georgia-was-about-to-retire-coal-plants-then-came-the-d
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/08/trump-executiver-order-coal-powe
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-miners-revive-fossil- | |
| |
| AI on 15:13 - Jun 10 with 614 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| AI on 09:07 - Jun 10 by blueasfook |
Spot on. I already use it in my day to day job. It's been writing my TWTD posts for the last year or so. |
Much as you would like us to believe you, surely even the most basic AI is far better than that. |  |
| |
| AI on 15:21 - Jun 10 with 599 views | J2BLUE |
| AI on 08:41 - Jun 10 by EddyJ |
AI is going to be the biggest and scariest change to the way we live our lives, probably in the history of humanity. Think about the amount the world changed with the adoption of the internet between the late 90s and early 2010s. Now multiply that by a big number.
I'm not sure people who don't work in the industry realise quite how quickly its progressing and what AI is able to do now. Yes, its not currently as good as a human at most tasks. But extrapolate the rate of improvement and you will see a time in the not-too-distant future where it can replicate or better a human at most things.
If you are a knowledge worker (i.e. most white collar jobs), your job is going to be augmented, and possibly replaced by AI in the next 15 years. If you are a driver (the most common job on the planet), your job is going to be replaced by AI in the next 15 years. If you work with your hands, robotics and AI will probably augment or replace your role in the next 20-30 years.
There are typically three counter arguments to job losses.
1) There will be other jobs, jobs we cannot imagine today. Possibly. But we are talking about the biggest shift humanity has ever seen over such a short period of time. That is going to cause A LOT of upheaval.
2) If nobody has jobs, nobody will have money for things, so the capitalists won't allow it. This argument relies on the idea that capitalists act as a homogenous group who all act in the interests of the group as a whole, rather than themselves as individuals. We know this is not the case.
3) My job could never be done by an AI. Think again. |
Completely agree. I am trying to invest to gain from it as I think it will easily do my job in five years.
In fact, I used Replit for about 30 minutes a week or two ago and built two apps. One of which is basically a database of answers to the most common questions I get at work. All answered clearly. I will edit it but no doubt I will use it to save time at work. |  |
| |
| AI on 15:41 - Jun 10 with 567 views | bsw72 |
I know a lot of the data, I tend to live and breath it daily - I have given my position whether people like it or not
Can I ask you what is your approach to AI and what are you doing to minimize the impact - without being confrontational about it, genuine question - as it may change my thought process around it as I am like you say in the middle of it . . . | | | |
| AI on 15:54 - Jun 10 with 552 views | Herbivore |
| AI on 15:41 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
I know a lot of the data, I tend to live and breath it daily - I have given my position whether people like it or not
Can I ask you what is your approach to AI and what are you doing to minimize the impact - without being confrontational about it, genuine question - as it may change my thought process around it as I am like you say in the middle of it . . . |
I don't use it and have no particular wish to use. | |
| |
| AI on 19:33 - Jun 10 with 462 views | bsw72 |
| AI on 15:54 - Jun 10 by Herbivore |
I don't use it and have no particular wish to use. |
Fair enough. I would add you don’t use it directly, but probably benefit of it indirectly. | | | |
| AI on 19:39 - Jun 10 with 454 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
You could almost say it is completely at odds with living sustainably on our planet. |  |
| |
| AI on 19:45 - Jun 10 with 450 views | CrockerITFC |
Honestly, I think a lot of the issue is people not knowing how to prompt rather than AI itself. If you feed it a crappy vague prompt, it's obvious the output will be garbage.
- Always ask it to provide sources
- Always prompt to say something along the lines of "I don't know" by explicitly telling it if you don't know or can't access the information required to answer the question, respond with "I don't know as I don't have access to that information" |  | | |
| AI on 19:53 - Jun 10 with 428 views | thebooks |
| AI on 14:52 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
Ah, now the debate about the word intelligence is a different thing, as there is no single agreed definition for it, and when you start to discuss human intellect it further muddies the water.
So called clever people still make basic errors, are they not intelligent . . . |
It’s not muddying anything. ChatGPT is a computer program that converts user inputs to tokens, analyses these against its tokenised and annotated (by humans) data sets and outputs strings based on its analysis of one against the other.
Like I say, that process can be useful, and it’s a huge programming feat. The danger comes from presenting this as anything other than a prediction or the output of a computer program; as the result of something “intelligent” or an actual conversation.
That’s all just marketing.
It’s not just that it can make errors. It’s that granting a program “intelligence” allows us to automate decisions about other humans.
The logic of clever people make errors, ChatGPT makes errors therefore ChatGPT is clever is a fallacy. | | | |
| AI on 19:56 - Jun 10 with 417 views | ThisIsMyUsername |
| AI on 08:10 - Jun 10 by Herbivore |
I really can't get on board with the enthusiasm for AI. First off, the energy and water consumption that generative AI uses is eye-watering. I know it's not the only thing that's energy and water intensive, but when the climate is already on its knees, should we really be mass rolling out yet another technology that is so damaging? Second, as it stands AI is mostly not very good. It gets a lot wrong and it writes horribly. I'm sure the tech will improve but right now it's so prone to basic errors as to be not fit for purpose. Third, there's the massive social impact. AI will replace people's jobs and those who have jobs will mainly be feeding prompts to AI - sounds like a lot of fun, that! Then there's the issue of deep fake images and videos, that it relies on mining information and some of that information is copyrighted (another ethical issue) or may itself be inaccurate. The Internet isn't exactly an infallible single point of truth on most issues. Plus, people have already been dumbed down over the years and lack critical thinking skills, technology that encourages people to think even less is not a good thing.
We can't put the genie back in the bottle entirely and doubtless AI does have some uses and will get better as the tech develops. But I'm not sure it should be used widely in most industries at this point, let alone by Joe Public. We've already seen people laying waste to half a rainforest by asking Chat GPT to make them into an action figure or asking it who Ipswich's worst loan signing is. People can't be trusted to use tech in a responsible way and the tech as it stands in encourages use that is not responsible. [Post edited 10 Jun 8:17]
|
I've been using ChatGPT quite a bit lately to help with learning German. It's been an incredibly useful resource; like having a teacher on hand to answer any questions, to provide practice exercises etc.
I'd not considered its environmental impact. |  |
| |
| AI on 20:07 - Jun 10 with 389 views | ThisIsMyUsername |
| AI on 14:34 - Jun 10 by bsw72 |
I have concerns, but about the wider environment full stop, AI is only part of it.
Me not using it is not going to stop the rapid progress and demand which AI generates, what I am for is cleaner energy sources to meet this level of demand which is only going to increase exponentially.
Shopping lists is a simplification of one of my tasks. It analyzes what we order and when, what is in the fridge and therefore what we need added or removed weekly - it actually has reduced food waste, which I see as a partial offset to the energy.
I hope that no-one thinks that not using AI is going to make the world greener, that cat left the bag several years ago as MS, Amazon etc set up their data centres. |
Can you not look in the fridge and work out for yourself what you do or don't need to buy?
Shouldn't everyone do their bit to reduce environmental damage and suffering, whether it's using AI less, turning off the socket when the appliance isn't on, reducing consumption of meat products etc.?
'Suppose a village contains 100 unarmed tribesmen eating their lunch. 100 hungry armed bandits descend on the village and each bandit at gun-point takes one tribesman’s lunch and eats it. The bandits then go off, each one having done a discriminable amount of harm to a single tribesman. Next week, the bandits are tempted to do the same thing again, but are troubled by new-found doubts about the morality of such a raid. Their doubts are put to rest by one of their number who does not believe in the principle of divisibility. They then raid the village, tie up the tribesmen, and look at their lunch. As expected, each bowl of food contains 100 baked beans. The pleasure derived from one baked bean is below the discrimination threshold. Instead of each bandit eating a single plateful as last week, each takes one bean from each plate. They leave after eating all the beans, pleased to have done no harm, as each has done no more than sub-threshold harm to each person.' | |
| |
| AI on 20:19 - Jun 10 with 357 views | J2BLUE |
| AI on 20:07 - Jun 10 by ThisIsMyUsername |
Can you not look in the fridge and work out for yourself what you do or don't need to buy?
Shouldn't everyone do their bit to reduce environmental damage and suffering, whether it's using AI less, turning off the socket when the appliance isn't on, reducing consumption of meat products etc.?
'Suppose a village contains 100 unarmed tribesmen eating their lunch. 100 hungry armed bandits descend on the village and each bandit at gun-point takes one tribesman’s lunch and eats it. The bandits then go off, each one having done a discriminable amount of harm to a single tribesman. Next week, the bandits are tempted to do the same thing again, but are troubled by new-found doubts about the morality of such a raid. Their doubts are put to rest by one of their number who does not believe in the principle of divisibility. They then raid the village, tie up the tribesmen, and look at their lunch. As expected, each bowl of food contains 100 baked beans. The pleasure derived from one baked bean is below the discrimination threshold. Instead of each bandit eating a single plateful as last week, each takes one bean from each plate. They leave after eating all the beans, pleased to have done no harm, as each has done no more than sub-threshold harm to each person.' |
The AI genie has left the bottle. It is going to revolutionise the world. We should be preparing with lots of clean energy projects rather than limiting use.
A lot of people don't seem to have any idea what it is already capable of and how disruptive it will be. The big tech companies are committing to massive energy purchases. Microsoft have agreed a 20 year deal to reopen a nuclear power plant ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx25v2d7zexo).
Perhaps AI will help us solve the climate crisis. | |
| |
| AI on 20:19 - Jun 10 with 357 views | Herbivore |
| AI on 19:56 - Jun 10 by ThisIsMyUsername |
I've been using ChatGPT quite a bit lately to help with learning German. It's been an incredibly useful resource; like having a teacher on hand to answer any questions, to provide practice exercises etc.
I'd not considered its environmental impact. |
At least you are using it for something useful. I think what irks me most is the really wasteful use, using it to generate those fecking stupid actions figures for example, or people just mindlessly using it on here to ask questions that actual Ipswich fans are better off just having a chat about. I'm not talking about banning it or anything, just making sure it's used mindfully with people being cognisant of its negative impacts rather than treating it like an entirely harmless tool. It sounds like your use of it is something it's actually appropriate to use it for, although we need to give some thought to how to be able to use it for those things while reducing the environmental impact. | |
| |
| AI on 20:22 - Jun 10 with 335 views | J2BLUE |
| AI on 20:19 - Jun 10 by Herbivore |
At least you are using it for something useful. I think what irks me most is the really wasteful use, using it to generate those fecking stupid actions figures for example, or people just mindlessly using it on here to ask questions that actual Ipswich fans are better off just having a chat about. I'm not talking about banning it or anything, just making sure it's used mindfully with people being cognisant of its negative impacts rather than treating it like an entirely harmless tool. It sounds like your use of it is something it's actually appropriate to use it for, although we need to give some thought to how to be able to use it for those things while reducing the environmental impact. |
I don't think anyone could deny that the action figure I generated of a Spurs fan complete with paper bag, Samaritans phone number, whiskey bottle and tissues was a good use of energy. | |
| |
| AI on 20:26 - Jun 10 with 317 views | Herbivore |
| AI on 20:19 - Jun 10 by J2BLUE |
The AI genie has left the bottle. It is going to revolutionise the world. We should be preparing with lots of clean energy projects rather than limiting use.
A lot of people don't seem to have any idea what it is already capable of and how disruptive it will be. The big tech companies are committing to massive energy purchases. Microsoft have agreed a 20 year deal to reopen a nuclear power plant ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx25v2d7zexo).
Perhaps AI will help us solve the climate crisis. |
That last point seems very unlikely. We already know how to solve the climate crisis, but nobody wants to do it. Burning more fossil fuels to feed the processing power AI requires isn't helping. I get that the genie is out of the bottle, it'd just be great if occasionally humanity asked itself whether it might be better to leave the cork in for a bit while we think through and find ways to address the massive downsides of letting the genie out. | |
| |
| AI on 20:36 - Jun 10 with 298 views | CrockerITFC |
| AI on 20:26 - Jun 10 by Herbivore |
That last point seems very unlikely. We already know how to solve the climate crisis, but nobody wants to do it. Burning more fossil fuels to feed the processing power AI requires isn't helping. I get that the genie is out of the bottle, it'd just be great if occasionally humanity asked itself whether it might be better to leave the cork in for a bit while we think through and find ways to address the massive downsides of letting the genie out. |
Most data centres either have their own nuclear reactors or will have them in the future. It's water that's more of an issue than fossil fuels | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
