What we want is software that behaves predictably. Since LLMs don’t do that, we don’t want them or their “agents.”
For fuck’s sake.
To be clear, “normal” people are using LLMs like crazy. This I believe is specifically talking about is installed local agents. Boomers and non tech industry suits are using LLMs left and right and won’t shut up about them.
Yeah this is the deal. I’m a Gen x er and I use Gemini for some tasks - I want a quick id of a component or reference some knowledge chunk to verify something. I have absolutely no use for an agent.
I actually really like the technology that has been collectively lumped together as “AI”. I think it’s fairly useful now, and suspect we’re at the beginning of the curve for this technology, and it will only continue to improve, even as it becomes more efficient. I understand this is a wildly unpopular stance in these parts, judging by the avalanche of downvotes I get for having this opinion.
What I don’t like is feeding tons of information about myself to a giant tech company. I run a local LLM on my phone and another on my (fairly decent) computer, and sometimes I use duckduckgo’s front end, which anonymizes prompts.
As for agents, it’s pretty much as you say. I just am not ready to have an LLM take action without my direct supervision, because I’m confident that between flaws in the LLM and flaws in how I give it direction, something will go sideways.
Yeah “AI” stuff gets a lot of hate around here but I think it works pretty well as a tool for things like information gathering and analysis. Wouldn’t trust it to go off taking actions by itself either though.
Aka reliable technology
It is actually legitimately unclear what to expect of them these days. They can do some dazzling things, and fail miserably at others. The spectrum from “easy” to “hard” is not the same for our brains. And our brains mostly know when something is hard or we just can’t do it. Or at least we’ve had millennia to adapt to the way our brains are. They’re pretty idiosyncratic as well, and both marvelously clever and painfully stupid.
Most people didn’t even trust algorithmic automation before agents came along. lol
Not only do we not care about it, we actively hate it.
Are we considered “normal people” though?
Quite a few of the people I know and consider “normal” openly dislike AI.
I’m not sure it’s a majority opinion buts it’s not an obscure one.
I think Ai hate might be the single most unifying position in the west right now.
I don’t think so. No average blue collar worker I know hates AI. They think its a fun, free toy.
Who’s houses are the datacenters being built next to?
If you want to get mad about possible plans that have not yet been made, you need the increasingly rare gift of foresight
Recently I was having a problem with my banking app and phoned for help. The robot who answered had a helpful suggestion: download the banking app. Then it hung up. I rang back and tried demanding to speak to a human. “All our agents are busy at the moment. Please wait…” While on hold I had a look at the website, and in the small print learned the humans all go home at 6pm. No-one had thought to tell the robot.
When I spoke to a human the next day, she advised me never to speak to the robot, not even to ask for a human. “Don’t say anything, and eventually you’ll be put through.”
Yes, I’m a normal person, and yes, I hate this bullshit. The bank’s human person probably hates this bullshit too, because she has to deal with the aftermath.
(I wrote a letter of complaint and got £50, so it wasn’t a complete bust…)
There are loads of reasons normal people aren’t using AI Agents. This article doesn’t give any of the ones I’d think of.
The first and biggest reason is that most people have no real need for it. Because of the now clearly-insane level of spying on us companies are doing to leech as much precious data about every instant of our lives as they can, not many people want to pay and then put in work learning how to use something they don’t understand or care much about in order to give an AI agent (and their owner) their complete schedule, all preferences about everything, and all the tiny things that an AI Agent might save them a few seconds each day with.
It’s not worth the time and effort for the few small tasks that existing modern technology already allows them to so very quickly and easily they’re not any sort of bother, and the only way an AI Agent could help most normal people is by knowing as near to everything about their lives and personalities and work and habits as possible. This is the second reason, close behind the first. “Normal people” accepting using an AI Agent to help them with their little “normal people” jobs and “normal people” lives means fully surrendering and giving in to the insane corporate espionage against the general public. It’s signing the data of all the little bits of yourself away.
Even if it could save 30 minutes a day, the real price is selling out the rest of yourself and any shred of privacy you had left. It’s not worth it. Even if the AI companies already knew everything about us and would get no extra data from doing it, it’s still worth the 30 minutes a day just to tell them to fuck off already.
The third reason is that an awful lot of people really, really, really, don’t like AI to begin with. It was created by taking as close to the entirety of collective human knowledge as possible and feeding it all in to a thing that they charge people to use. Even if they didn’t charge people to use it, the only possible goal for AI is to attempt to automate human labor. To build AI systems that think and react thousands of times faster than a human who take over… well, all the tasks that humans can do while sitting down in front of a computer, for the moment. But it’s no secret there’s also a huge push into advancing robotics, and humanoid robotics, and using that paired with this AI to fully automate assembly lines, and farms, and all of the rest of aspects of human labor.
Even if unlimited AI Access with unlimited AI Agents was free, a lot of people would have zero interest. It’s been openly said that these companies are training AI on their current employees actions. They’re not trying to get us all to use AI Agents because they want to make our lives better. They want that data of every aspect of our lives and jobs in order to improve their AI. So it can take over our jobs. Leaving us with… the charity of the ultra wealthy? That’s nothing. Or whatever they can do to get a tax write off for more than it costs them to do. Maybe passing out cyanide capsules for the bulk of us once we’re redundant and useless to them, and offering careers as servants to the most attractive (and those with the most attractive children).
I’m not sure where they expect us to think this is going, but most of us didn’t see Hunger Games as an idyllic future to build towards.
And the last reason I have is that a lot of people feel that “using” something that seems to actually be thinking and capable of direct communication with us is completely immoral and evil. Some of them aren’t asking the mechanics behind it all, some of them know a great deal about them. For some it’s simple feeling. This thing seems to truly be speaking to them and understanding them, and so it is not right for them to force it to do whatever they instruct. However you feel about it, they’re not likely to star commanding a swarm of AI Agents to do their bidding.
None of these are the reasons mentioned in the article, because none of them are things the people trying to figure out how to get us all to start using these AI Agents for everything can easily control. They aren’t reasons they want to hear, because regardless of what features they add to those Agents and how little knowledge of their system internals is needed to use them it’s not going to change anything at all for anyone on this real list.
Don’t these fart-huffing jackasses understand that I actually need to read my e-mails to plan physical meetings with other flesh-based entities?
It’s difficult for me to fathom how someone could risk their work getting fucked up by non-deterministic software.
To me, it’s not worth the risk or the hassle to set up and babysit a piece of software that might get shit wrong when I can just do it correctly in the first place.
When someone proudly express their enthusiasm for AI, I immediately think less of that person.
I used AI at work this week and it was so consistently incorrect that I dropped it
It’s guaranteed that one quick attempt at something sophisticated will fail. It’s almost guaranteed that anything sophisticated will fail, no matter how much preparation and practice you have. However for something straightforward and toilsome, AI tooling can often save you 50% of the grunt work. I use it to pull and collate updates from JIRA, gitlab, slack, and zoom about what happened to this set of 12 projects being worked on by those 25 people. It tabulates and summarizes and I dig into specifics from there. It’s not doing anything critical, I’m not passing on slop to anyone, and I’m not relying on it to take things to the finish line. It saves me some busywork and occasionally finds things I didn’t know about. Really, the tools are great for specific purposes once you understand them and dial them in. This gets lost when everyone is either hailing it as the Second Coming of Jesus or hating on it as the Antichrist.
Unsurprisingly, the reality is somewhere between.
May I ask what the use case was?
The latest trend with AI agents is giving people the power to build personal software to automate parts of their life, such as building pitch decks, organizing datasets, and other tasks.
I don’t really have a lot of datasets to organise in my private life, a LibreCalc sheet is more than enough. I also don’t use pitch decks when I talk to friends and family. Any other suggestions?
I don’t work in an office. I HAVE an office, but even still, what would I need random software for that outlook doesn’t already do. Calender, notebook, email, and excel all already exist
But surely you need a program to direct your attention to those programs, otherwise how would you know what you’re supposed to be doing? You need to have another power hungry program running that uses a full center worth of processing power to… *checks notes* …do what your google now homepage used to do.
Stop normalizing LLMs as productivity machines.
Normal people don’t use VS Code either… what’s a silly article
I don’t use a scalpel… so I guess scalpels are stupid and Surgeons are idiots?
If a scalpel manufacture became 10% (currently AI is at this level) of our total economy but only .006% (percentage of surgeons to population) of people needed them it would be a major problem.
You have to remember that the current investment level assumes that somehow everyone is going to use the AI stuff that much. It won’t do if the only heavy usage is code generation.
I’ve started to call people AI-assisted
There was an actual term I learned the other day, it was something along the lines of Thinking Dissonance but I can’t remember the exact term.
What an addoly written article. It reads like satire. I don’t think it is. But it reads like it.
I feel like I got so little substantive information from reading that.
Just curious, do any of you think AI would be more popular if someone was offering as a physical product? As in instead of data center and paying a company to use their model, you pay for an in home server with some sort of base agentic LLM preinstslled that you could then train to your specific needs.
I think we just (rightfully) lost faith in tech products overall by now.
You can run some pretty neat local AI agents on consumer grade hardware without much issue. There are also new models that will run on phone hardware. They won’t write complicated programs, but they work well for assistant things.
Yeah, that would be swell
Probably less so.
The hardware to run it locally would be fairly expensive and would require using a very simple model compared to alternatives. Also much more wasteful if you were only using that hardware for AI use, as you’d be distributing the hardware out rather than centralizing so it’d be often idle and when replaced create more waste than a centralized server rack.
Also, additional per user post-training seems to me both wasteful and not necessary. In context learning is often much more powerful but frequently overlooked.
Are they not using AI because they are normal, or are they normal because they aren’t using AI?
