Would agree with this and think it is more than just your reasons, especially if you venture outside the US at least from what I've experienced. I've seen it at least personally more so where AI tech hubs aren't around and there is no way to "get in on the action". I see blue collar workers who are less threatened ask me directly with less to lose - why would anyone want to invent this? One of the reasons the average person on the street doesn't relate well to tech workers in general; there is a perceived lack of "street smarts" and self preservation.
Anecdotally its almost like they see them like mad scientists who are happy blowing up themselves and the world if they get to play with the new toy; almost childlike usually thinking they are doing "good" in the process. Which is seen as a sign of a lack of a type of intelligence/maturity by most people.
ChatGPT is one of the most used websites in the world and it's used by the most normal people in the world, in what way is the opinion "generally negative"?
A big reason is relative advantage. The "I have to use it because its there now and everyone else is, but I would rather no one have to use it at all" argument.
Lets say I'm a small business and I want to produce a new logo for some marketing material. In the past I would of paid someone either via a platform or some local business to do it. That would of just been the cost of business.
Now since there is a lower cost technology, and I know my competition is using it, I should use it too else all else equal I'm losing margin compared to my competition.
It's happening in software development too. Its the reason they say "if you don't use AI you will be taken over by someone who does". It may be true; but that person may of wished the AI genie was never let out of the bottle.
No it's not. No one is forced to use ChatGPT, it got popular by itself. When millions use it voluntarily, that contradicts the 'generally negative' statement, even if there are legitimate criticisms of other aspects of AI.
You can use ChatGPT for minor stuff and still have a negative view on AI. In fact the non-tech white collar workers I know use chatgpt for stuff like business writing at work but are generally concerned.
Negative sentiment also comes through in opinion polling in the US.
We'll see how long that lasts with their their new Ad framework. Probably most normal people are put off by all the other AI being marketed at them. A useful AI website is one thing, AI forced into everything else is quite another. And then they get to hear on the news or from their friends how AI-everything is going to take all the jobs so a few controversial people in tech can become trillionaires.
Yes, and I made an argument supporting that "used" and "it's bad" are not mutually exclusive . You simply repeated what I responded to and asserted you're the right opinion.
I get your argument but in this case it is that straightforward because it's not a forced monopoly like e.g. Microsoft Windows. Common folk decided to use ChatGPT because they think it is good. Think Google Search, it got its market position because it was good.
>Common folk decided to use ChatGPT because they think it is good.
That is not the only reason to use a tool you think is bad. "good enough" doesn't mean "good". If you think it's better to generate an essay due in an hour then rush something by hand, that doesn't mean it's "good". If I decide to make a toy app full of useless branches, no documentation, and tons of sleep calls, it doesn't mean the program is "good". It's just "good enough".
That's the core issue here. "good enough" varies on the context, and not too many people are using it like the sales pitch to boost the productivity of the already productive.
I don't agree with your comments, especially using PirateBay as an example. Stating either as "bad" is purely subjective. I find both PirateBay and ChatGPT both good things. They both bring value to me personally.
I'd wager that most people would find both as "good" depending on how you framed the question.
Seemingly the primary economic beneficiaries of AI are people who own companies and manage people. What this means for the average person working for a living is probably a lot of change, additional uncertainty, and additional reductions in their standard of living. Rich get richer, poor get poorer, and they aren't rich.
I'm just trying to tell you what people outside your bubble think, that AI is VERY MUCH a class thing. Using AI images at people is seen as completely not cool, it makes one look like a corporate stooge.
Sure, I meant the anglosphere. But in most countries, the less people are aware of technology or use the internet the less they are enthusiastic about AI.
I still don't see it. Look at some of the countries with the highest relatively high individual "personal tech usage" as well as "percentage of workers/economy connected to tech": South Korea, Israel, Japan, the US, UK, the Netherlands. The first three are on the positive end, the next two on the negative end, and the last one in the middle.
"Region of the world" correlation looks a lot stronger than that.
