Students Boo Commencement Speaker After She Calls AI the 'Next Industrial Revolution' (404media.co)
- Reference: 0183183976
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/26/05/11/172237/students-boo-commencement-speaker-after-she-calls-ai-the-next-industrial-revolution
- Source link: https://www.404media.co/ucf-ai-commencement-speaker-booed/
> Speaking to graduates of University of Central Florida's College of Arts and Humanities and Nicholson School of Communication and Media on May 8, commencement speaker Gloria Caulfield, vice president of strategic alliances at Tavistock Group, told graduating humanities students that AI is the "next industrial revolution," and was [1]met with thousands of booing graduates . "And let's face it, change can be daunting. The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution," Caulfield said. At that point, murmurs rippled through the crowd. Caulfield paused, and the crowd erupted into boos. "Oh, what happened?" Caulfield said, turning around with her hands out. "Okay, I struck a chord. May I finish?" Someone in the crowd yelled, "AI SUCKS!"
>
> Her speech begins around the hour and 15 minute mark [2]in the UCF livestream . [...] Before the industrial revolution comment, Caulfield praised Jeff Bezos for his passion and use of Amazon as a "stepping stone" to his real dream: spaceflight. Rattled after the crowd's reaction, she continued her speech: "Only a few years ago, AI was not a factor in our lives." The crowd cheered. "Okay. We've got a bipolar topic here I see," Caulfield said. "And now AI capabilities are in the palm of our hands." The crowd booed again. "I love it, passion, let's go," she said. "AI is beginning to challenge all major sectors to find their highest and best use," she continued. "Okay, I don't want any giggles when I say this. We have been through this before, these industrial revolutions. In my graduation era, we were faced with the launch of the internet."
>
> She goes on to talk about how cellphones used to be the size of briefcases. "At that time we had no idea how any of these technologies would impact the world and our lives. [...] These were some of the same trepidations and concerns we are now facing. But ultimately it was a game changer for global economic development and the proliferation of new businesses that never existed like Apple and Google and Meta and so many others, and not to mention countless job opportunities. So being an optimist here, AI alongside human intelligence has the potential to help us solve some of humanity's greatest problems. Many of you in this graduating class will play a role in making this happen."
[1] https://www.404media.co/ucf-ai-commencement-speaker-booed/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/live/zwYkHS8jvSE?t=4416s
Stupid people invited as speakers will get booed (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it, while AI has potential, these big businesses are using it to cut staffing, while at the same time, AI has been shown to NOT be ready to replace humans for most jobs. So, the promise of AI benefits WHO exactly, workers, those who want to be workers, or just the very wealthy who have hoarded their wealth while paying a lower percentage of their income than those who make only $50,000 per year? Yea, it may improve productivity, and then, the workers don't get raises while being more productive.
THAT is the reality, not that AI is making things better for normal people, because again, those who are more productive are not seeing wages increase accordingly. Only the wealthy are seeing a true benefit.
Are the wealthy actually receiving benefits? (Score:4, Insightful)
> THAT is the reality, not that AI is making things better for normal people, because again, those who are more productive are not seeing wages increase accordingly. Only the wealthy are seeing a true benefit.
I question that the wealthy ARE receiving benefits, beyond the pick and shovel vendors. I don't think the modern LLM AIs are useful enough to really make a tangible dent in your labor needs. Most talk about actual benefits are based on theoretical science fiction AI...not today's version of Claude/OpenAI/Gemini. IF AI worked as promised, absolutely...but first, it has to work as promised. It falls short in real-world usage. If ChatGPT can do your job, it was probably automated a few years ago by simpler technology.
So we're all in this uneasy transition. Today's AI doesn't work very well and shows no sign of working as promised in the short term. However, it's equally foolish to assume it never will work.
The wealthy WILL absolutely benefit from science fiction AI. However Claude/Gemini/OpenAI/CoPilot all fail on the basics today. They provide SOME value, but not enough to tangibly cut headcount.
Re: (Score:3)
Why give pesky humans a paycheck and benefits to dig a ditch when an AI-enabled machine can do it without needing a lunchbreak or bathroom break or needing a holiday off?
Sure, right now, it's only running on a computer in the server closet, spending each and every day filling in spreadsheets... but you know, sure as hell is hot, that they're already working on stuffing it into construction equipment and farm equipment and factories and working on replacing teachers and professors with AI humanoids... don't
AI is almost never the limiting factor (Score:3)
> Why give pesky humans a paycheck and benefits to dig a ditch when an AI-enabled machine can do it without needing a lunchbreak or bathroom break or needing a holiday off?
> Sure, right now, it's only running on a computer in the server closet, spending each and every day filling in spreadsheets... but you know, sure as hell is hot, that they're already working on stuffing it into construction equipment and farm equipment and factories and working on replacing teachers and professors with AI humanoids... don't worry, soon the only people who will be able to find a job will be people with 20+ years of experience in a 5+ year old "industry".
You could automate ditch digging with 80s technology. Take a (digital) picture, draw the ditch, let the robot do it's work...or simply drill some beacons in the soil at the 4 corners. It's not the AI stopping automated ditch digging..it's ALL the other stuff. A robotic excavator would be very expensive. It doesn't take a lot of labor to dig a ditch...one skilled operator and maybe a day's worth of labor, tops. So that tops out around $400 today. Even if you're charging consulting company rates, that's
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly... the only jobs will be maintaining the server buildings that control everything, and those jobs will want people with 30+ years experience in a job that's only 10+ years old, for a position where you occasionally have to replace a failed RAID drive.
I predicted a while ago that we'll eventually just be the blob-humans from Wall-E.
Re: (Score:2)
When the local McD's franchisee buys the robot with machine vision and machine learning, it's expensive... but, it can flip burger, put burger on bun, whip around and get fries, put exact amount of salt on fries, put an exact amount of ketchup and mustard on burger, wrap burger precisely, put burger and fries on tray or conveyor belt... all without needing a paycheck or benefits or anything, and not giving any attitude... it doesn't even need a uniform or a nametag.
It wouldn't be Claude that they use necess
Re: (Score:3)
The wealthy with all that money from the stock market are definitely making a lot of money, which most of us don't have the disposable income to have dropped $100,000 into NVIDIA four years ago to have really profited from it. Wall Street only cares about corporate profits, and those corporations will still make a lot of money from senseless wars, even if we go into a full scale depression. That's the nature of the modern economic climate, those with a lot of money get rich while the rest of humanity st
But are they making $ from AI? outside gambling? (Score:2)
> The wealthy with all that money from the stock market are definitely making a lot of money, which most of us don't have the disposable income to have dropped $100,000 into NVIDIA four years ago to have really profited from it. Wall Street only cares about corporate profits, and those corporations will still make a lot of money from senseless wars, even if we go into a full scale depression. That's the nature of the modern economic climate, those with a lot of money get rich while the rest of humanity starves.
That's the pick and shovel vendors. Selling AI is profitable, gambling on AI is profitable, but are AI investments profitable? If you use LLMs in your business, how much are you saving? Yes, nVidia shareholders are making a fuckton. AI can help professionals be more productive. It may pay for itself, but providing enough productivity to tangibly reduce headcount?...that's science fiction...I can imagine MANY ways of doing so with science fiction AI...just not with real world LLMs.
Re:Stupid people invited as speakers will get booe (Score:4, Insightful)
Good summary. Also, AI has a few other annoying traits. They claim it's going to destroy programming, but I disagree (as a systems programmer with 30 years of experience) it'll only destroy the pipeline for new programmers. All young people hear is how IT jobs are a dead end because AI is going to consume all but the leadership roles and those are already taken by us old guys. They already were moving from a trickle to a drip in terms of jobs you can realistically get as an American student/grad anyway. Anyone that looked first would realize that nearly every year since 1999 we've had more H1B visas than we've (at least on paper) created in terms of net-new IT jobs. Translation: all new jobs go to Indians: FUCK YOU Americans. The fat cats see us as a resource to milk and extract from but they damn sure don't want to pay American wages. Buy low using foreigners, sell high using American markets. So, you gotta be either categorically stupid or overwhelmingly overconfident to think you're going to be some white kid working in IT these days. There is little wonder why the industry is in such shitty condition compared to the 1990's.
Besides finishing off IT jobs for American folks, AI has also devastated jobs like Graphic Design or anything related to artwork. It's driving down the cost of doing artwork to way below what most artists could survive off (and there was a reason we called them "Starving Artists" in the first place). That "industry" such as it was, is already cooked and hemorrhaging jobs and job openings. Musicians also are going to have a hard time. AI can produce music just as easily as it does with artwork and the only musicians who skate by will likely be live performers and mega-uber-pop stars. There are only so many of those. I'd write off being any time of creative worker in the face of AI's threat.
So, what happened? Well, I'd summarize it like this: they said it was just going to replace coders and take jobs nobody wanted to do. Instead it's taking the most fun jobs that everyone dreams of and running off the last of anyone interested in IT that speaks English. Meanwhile you can go get an MBA and hope to join the army of fleecers and leeches trying to pull forward 30 years of earnings from AI stocks.
Re: (Score:2)
New tech has never and will never benefit workers in-and-of itself.
The only way for workers to reap the benefits of new tech is to force the issue through law and/or unionization.
I am well aware of the problematic nature of unions, and of the problematic nature of over regulation of business. That doesn't change the fact that they are the only two tools we have to improve our working conditions. If we don't use what we have to push for what we want, then we won't get what we want. It's that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... try to unionize a company that doesn't want unions, and is hostile towards anyone who even mentions it (as in, their life becomes hell until they either quit or screw up enough to get fired)... that worked well... or the company will payoff the union to let the company get away with murder.
And, forcing the issue through law... write your Senator/congressman/mayor or whoever does as much good as walking down the street in a one-person protest... the company owns them already.
The key thing is: there w
Re:Stupid people invited as speakers will get booe (Score:4, Interesting)
AI is only going to replace jobs that people hated doing in the first place, (eg boring, repetitive, hostile-customer facing jobs)
Prepare for a future where "I want to speak to a manager" results in being sent to an AI to stonewall you.
Re: (Score:1)
If your thesis is correct, then that means the big businesses will be very ineffective, with them not having the right number of human workers.
So you can start a new company and hire all their laid off staff, and outcompete the big businesses that laid them off.
You after all understand labor and production output better than all the big businesses that laid off the workers.
This is great. You will become fabulously wealthy. Which big business will you be going after first?
Re: (Score:2)
It benefits huge surveillance companies that want to invest in pre-crime and automating the criminal justice process .. like the girl from Tennessee who was extradited to North Dakota, a state she had never visited in her life, because an AI/computer-vision camera matched her via facial recognition to a crime she did not commit. She was detained for six months, and when her lawyer finally got her out, she was left outside the jail, with the clothing she came in with, no jacket, no winter clothing, no money
Unpopular but correct opinion (Score:2)
It is the industrial revolution for knowledge skills. Changes will be dramatic and traumatic.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but these are Human ities students. That, by its very definition, is an area where AI should have very limited use, where it is applied should be done really, really, carefully, and job losses are far less likely than in many other fields. Sure, there's analysis of datasets, especially of geographical and historical data, but that is one of the areas where a specifically trained model can really be of use, but an AI is never going to painstakingly brush away dirt from some ancient historical site, an
Re: (Score:2)
Did they need archaeologists onboard the Axiom in the movie, Wall-E?
In the real world, today, archaeologists find interesting stuff still, but what bearing on humanity do these 'interesting things' have?
Even if the AI bubble burst, do you think companies are going to junk the fleets of robots they used to replace the humans they used to employ and spend all the money to rehire the humans? Is Facebook going to delete the AIs running all the departments and spend the money to rehire people?
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming the companies with these fleets of (currently largely non-existant) robots are still going to solvent if the bubble pops. That seems highly unlikely in many cases given the business model for AI is apparently "borrow massive amounts of money to fund it using the promise future orders as collateral". Asset strippers have no interest in salvaging a business; their business model is to buy the physical assets cheap, dump the debt on to bagholders (the shareholders), and sell the assets off to
Re: (Score:2)
I forget... don't most manufacturing jobs use tons of robots?
(From Google summary)
"Industries Using Robots in Manufacturing
Automotive: Robots perform welding, painting, assembly, and quality control, with nearly 30% of industrial robots operating in car manufacturing plants
Electronics and Semiconductors: Robots handle micro-assembly, PCB handling, testing, and inspection, ensuring precision and consistency
Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices: Automation improves sterility, accuracy, and efficiency in product
Re: (Score:2)
> That, by its very definition, is an area where AI should have very limited use
The definition of AI is essentially:
"to proceed on the basis of the conjecture that every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it."
So no, by definition, the stuff those humanities students do is a prime target. We used to think that the creative humanities stuff was going to be really hard, maybe the ultimate goal for AI, but it tu
Re: (Score:1)
Humanities students should be especially interested in things that massively affect humanity.
She's not wrong though. (Score:5, Insightful)
The genie's not going back in the bottle, no matter how vociferously the kids complain.
Re:She's not wrong though. (Score:4, Interesting)
But the genie can be controlled.
Nuclear weapons are a "genie out of the bottle" and they threat of nuclear war is ever-present, but we've not yet obliterated each other with nuclear weapons because we acknowledged that it's probably best that we restrict the the proliferation and possession of nuclear weapons.
We need to do the same with AI.
The researchers need control (Score:2)
What needs to be controlled are the firms and people working on AI (just like we regulate research on viruses, genetics, atomic energy, etc).
Re: (Score:1)
The moment awareness happens, all that is irrelevant.
Re:She's not wrong though. (Score:4, Insightful)
> Nuclear weapons are a "genie out of the bottle" and they threat of nuclear war is ever-present, but we've not yet obliterated each other with nuclear weapons because we acknowledged that it's probably best that we restrict the the proliferation and possession of nuclear weapons.
There is an ongoing war that is crippling economies worldwide specifically to prevent one nation from getting one nuclear weapon. There is another war where the mere threat of using nuclear weapons has caused the entire Western World from properly protecting an ally against stealing land and heinous war crimes in the act of doing so.
That is not 'controlled', my friend. That is teetering on the edge of disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Nuclear weapons are a "genie out of the bottle" and they threat of nuclear war is ever-present, but we've not yet obliterated each other with nuclear weapons because we acknowledged that it's probably best that we restrict the the proliferation and possession of nuclear weapons.
> There is an ongoing war that is crippling economies worldwide specifically to prevent one nation from getting one nuclear weapon. There is another war where the mere threat of using nuclear weapons has caused the entire Western World from properly protecting an ally against stealing land and heinous war crimes in the act of doing so.
> That is not 'controlled', my friend. That is teetering on the edge of disaster.
You have a point.
Re:She's not wrong though. (Score:5, Insightful)
the primary reason that's happening is because a genocidal leader in one country convinced a narcissistic cretin in another to tear up a agreement that was enforced and working
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously equating the potential of nuclear attack with actual nuclear attack?
That lack of nuclear weapons in use is evidence of the control. You can call that control "tenuous" or "scary", but we don't exist in a post-apocalyptic nuclear hellscape because of the many different controls put in place over the last 80 years.
Your awfulizing is not representative of reality.
Back to the topic at hand -- the genie cannot be put back in the bottle, but it can be controlled. You have to put in the effort to
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, remember these are humanities students who just graduated, though. Some of their chosen majors devalued from "decent chances at a good job" when they started to "total waste of money and time" at the end.
Re: (Score:3)
Not particularly the message for graduates of Art and Humanities...
Of the potential benefits of AI, the trashing of arts and humanities is not exactly something most folks like already.
Re: (Score:3)
If the AI genie is the same one that is generating slop and producing AI data-centers that won't be used on a massive scale then maybe we should figure out how to get it back in the bottle. Or put shackles on it.
Meanwhile, at Carnegie Mellon... (Score:4, Interesting)
Jensen Huang to college grads: "Run. Don't walk" toward AI
[1]https://www.axios.com/2026/05/... [axios.com]
Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang told graduates at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh yesterday that demand for AI infrastructure is creating a "once-in-a-generation opportunity to reindustrialize America and restore the nation's capacity to build."
Why it matters: With many college grads fearing AI could obliterate their career dreams, Huang pointed to boundless opportunity as a "new industry is being born. A new era of science and discovery is beginning ... I cannot imagine a more exciting time to begin your life's work."
Nvidia, which makes AI chips, is the world's most valuable company. Huang told 5,800 recipients of undergraduate and graduate degrees that the AI buildout will require plumbers, electricians, ironworkers, and builders for chip factories, data centers and advanced manufacturing facilities.
"No generation has entered the world with more powerful tools â" or greater opportunities â" than you," he said. "We are all standing at the same starting line. This is your moment to help shape what comes next. So run. Don't walk."
"Every major technological revolution in history created fear alongside opportunity," Huang added. "When society engages technology openly, responsibly, and optimistically, we expand human potential far more than we diminish it."
Full speech: [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.axios.com/2026/05/11/jensen-huang-carnegie-mellon-commencement-ai
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZh_0uRgrg4
Re:Meanwhile, at Carnegie Mellon... (Score:5, Informative)
Translation: Guy whose company has made untold billions from AI is telling people to embrace AI because it'll solve everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Jensen Huang is a tool.
Not sure that was the best crowd to speak to (Score:4, Insightful)
While she's not wrong, saying it to graduates....Not the best idea.
It will be transformative, and not everyone will benefit. Some are getting screwed right out of the gate. The demise of the Newspaper industry seems an app comparison. That was just a little slower in its disruption. And journalists could migrate to new media outlets. But now even that is at risk. And it's not just them.
If everything that can be affected is, many entry level jobs will be gone. People with valid entry level skills can be replaced. And there are corporations already laying off people, prematurely in my opinion. The economy doesn't work if people can't make money for their work. And if the people don't have money, bad things can/will happen.
I'm currently safe in my position, currently. But I'm not taking that for granted. My experience helps me at the moment, but, you get an AI in here, let it read all our docs, and explore the system...who knows?
The best I can say to the kids currently in college, get in front of it. Learn how to use it appropriately, use it as a tool and it can help. To me just like a hammer, using it correctly, it's helpful, in correctly, you can hurt your self, ruin a project. But putting your head in the sand, and pretending it's nothing, that will hurt you.
hmm (Score:3)
You'd think an experienced speaker would be able to adapt to the crowd.
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of them don't have any money. She was speaking to their patrons.
Re: (Score:1)
PeopleSkillsGPT failed them
Re: (Score:2)
> You'd think an experienced speaker would be able to adapt to the crowd.
I'm guessing people like [1]her [tavistockdevelopment.com] are used to the crowd having to adapt to them. It's the same logic driving the Trump/GOP mid-cycle re-redistricting efforts.
> "Oh, what happened?" Caulfield said, turning around with her hands out. "Okay, I struck a chord. May I finish?" Someone in the crowd yelled, "AI SUCKS!"
Her response seems to indicate that not only did she fail to predict the room, she failed to respond to it well after it got read to her.
[1] https://tavistockdevelopment.com/leaders/gloria-caulfield/
Re: (Score:2)
> You'd think an experienced speaker would be able to adapt to the crowd.
There's a difference between interacting with a crowd and giving a speech. She's not there to promote a 2 way interaction, to teach people and engage in discourse. This isn't a political debate, it's a commencement speech.
When giving a predefined speech to someone who you don't have any stake in appealing to you give your speech and move on. Which is precisely what she did. Adapting means causing more problems as well as potentially running over an allotted slot affecting other proceedings.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? If she's an experienced speaker I suspect the VP of strategic alliances for a multinational private equity holding company is used to talking to a very specific type of audience. We even have a phrase for that that comes from a similar type of speaker: "preaching to the choir."
The real hilarity is that someone from a humanities college thought she'd be a good pick.
Re: (Score:2)
You forget your metamucil this morning, grandpa?
You're Gonna Go Far, Kid (Score:4, Insightful)
Commencement speakers are supposed to give speeches about how they are going to succeed because they worked hard. Not about how they are unemployable they are going to be.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
The only people unemployable are those who are booing the thing they never bothered to learn. Every technological change in history has caused job losses someplace and job gains somewhere else. The question is, will these people have their jobs replaced by someone else who understands the tools and uses them to make these people obsolete, or should they learn those tools themselves to make them more valuable.
Re:You're Gonna Go Far, Kid (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll keep learning the lessons of the [1]Luddites [wikipedia.org] as history repeats itself. Those job losses are always painful to the affected individuals. The economy will eventually be better doesn't console someone who right now is facing enormous college debt, a poor job market for what they trained for, high income inequality, and inflated of costs of living.
Also "learn AI tools" sure feels like the last decade's "learn to code and you'll be employable" mantra.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly disagree, I've had good discussion as we're both frequent commenters. And if you disagree with moderation, then participating in [1]meta-moderation [slashdot.org] is a good idea. It helps get points to people who are moderating fairly.
That said, I've taken my own share of inflammatory or cynical positions, which often leads to good discussion. Even in this case, the statement about the Luddites is being in partial agreement with their sentiment, but adding that we shouldn't ignore historical context about how little
[1] https://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=metamod
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately their "AI" is just a very complicated random number generator. It can automate or accelerate a lot of work but humans will still need to monitor the output for when the "AI" takes a few tabs of digital acid and starts hallucinating.
But if they ever achieve their Holy Grail AI which is smarter, faster and cheap than humans then there will be no The Economy for humans any more. Humans will be as relevant as oxen to most of the oligarchs.
Re: (Score:2)
"Our AI is awesome! It never hallucinates, so we don't need a human monitoring it! You have half an hour to leave the property."
It's not a question of 'if'... it's a matter of "how soon".
Re: (Score:2)
> The economy will eventually be better doesn't console someone who right now is facing enormous college debt, a poor job market for what they trained for, high income inequality, and inflated of costs of living.
None of that has to do with AI, so there's no reason to boo AI unless those people are themselves unable to understand the world around them (at which point they'll probably struggle finding jobs regardless of what the economy is doing). No one right now is unemployable due to AI. The only thing is people may be making themselves unemployable by openly ignoring the tools that may affect their trade. The electric screwdriver didn't make builders unemployed either, only those who said "I don't need no fancy e
Re: (Score:2)
> The only people unemployable are those who are booing the thing they never bothered to learn.
How do you even know what they bothered to learn?
> Every technological change in history has caused job losses someplace and job gains somewhere else.
Does this still apply when those jobs gained someplace else are also filled by machines?
Re: (Score:2)
> How do you even know what they bothered to learn?
People don't typically boo tools they know how to use effectively.
> Does this still apply when those jobs gained someplace else are also filled by machines?
Does your strawman apply? I don't think so. At the moment there's no evidence that AI is taking any jobs in any meaningful way, beyond a few select industries, and even in those industries the jobs often remain for those who know how to use the AI tools.
Now to be fair to you Arts Humanities and Communication is a field which will include some of those people. All the more reason for them to embrace and get a deep meaningful understanding of A
Re: (Score:2)
> People don't typically boo tools they know how to use effectively.
So you have no data or evidence to support your conclusions and your "use effectively" criteria is simply begging the question? After all a tool you can't use effectively sucks and one that can be used effectively doesn't? Right?
>> Does this still apply when those jobs gained someplace else are also filled by machines?
> Does your strawman apply? I don't think so. At the moment there's no evidence that AI is taking any jobs in any meaningful way, beyond a few select industries, and even in those industries the jobs often remain for those who know how to use the AI tools.
The context of the commencement speech is the future rather than the present. If in the future AI takes jobs why would the taking of jobs not also include taking of gained jobs?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the speech does tell them what their future is going to be, so it's not wrong.
They won't necessarily 'unemployable' per se... there just won't be any jobs for them to apply at.
Welcome to the future!
(I've been saying it since LLM-AI/AI was first mentioned en masse here... kiss your high-paying jobs and expensive toys goodbye... and wave to the overlords at SkyNet/Matrix)
Re: (Score:1)
The myth that somehow the industrial revolution made life harder is a hard one to break - mainly because of the tripe Marx, Engels, and his ilk spread. The reality is that the misery, deprivation, exploitation, and abuse of the individual were already there. The only thing industrialization did was make it visible by bringing large groups of people together. Before the Industrial Revolution, kids died alone and forgotten on the roads. Children were routinely sold by parents to make ends meet. Farm lif
Of course (Score:2)
Yes, of course. New technologies do famously well when the younger generation hates them.
Oh, wait... That's the opposite of the truth... Oops.
Huge disconnect (Score:5, Interesting)
More than any other IT fad over the past 2 decades, I've noticed AI has really divided "decision makers" and "makers/workers". Those of us in the trenches making things work are highly skeptical of AI and treat it much as we have any other "flash in the pan" technology; weary, willing to test/play with it, but disbelieving of the hype.
The decision makers though...whoooboy, they've bought into the tech hook, line and sinker. They want AI everything, even in places it makes no sense. They can't define what they want AI to do, or how it's supposed to do it, but by god they will sign away millions of dollars in pursuit of their golden cow.
The only time I really saw anything like this was with "Teh Cloudz!", but even then it was tempered by practicality. AI? It's magic beans, all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Makers/workers: Your jobs are safe. Decision makers: Make way for CEO Claude.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The same can be said of every technology. The more "experienced" people are the most sceptical to any possibility of change. Those people inexperienced who have used something on the other hand see how significant of a change can be.
The question is, do those "experienced" (the makers in the trenches in your case) adapt and learn the tools using them to support their working positions, or do they ignore them, boo them, pretend they don't exist, and then get made redundant by someone else who comes along and
Re: (Score:3)
I've been through more than a few technology cycles, so while I don't necessary disagree with you, the scale of the disconnect between the worker bees and management is more significant than I ever remember.
It's becoming exceedingly difficult to dissuade management from AI courses of action, even when they make no sense or will end up delivering a substandard product for significantly higher cost.
For instance, I just had a client implement an AI auto-attendant for a medical office. Were they having difficu
AI growing less popular than Trump (Score:1)
and that takes effort.
Sure, but ... (Score:2)
> graduates of University of Central Florida's College of Arts and Humanities and Nicholson School of Communication and Media
Where those graduates actually expecting to find (well-paying) jobs, in those fields, now - regardless of AI?
Definitely Ark Fleet Ship B candidates -- oh, wait ... :-)
/sympathetic-sarcasm
Tavistock Group (Score:2)
Based in the Bahamas.
In other words, get ready for your jobs on a plantation.
Love how she spins it (Score:4, Insightful)
..."Okay. We've got a bipolar topic here I see"
No. There is no bi-polarity. And the people booing you are not mentally ill.
The students hate that you think it's the greatest new thing.
And they love the time it did not exist.
To use a much overused term where it's actually appropriate:
When you try to convince people their view is invalid and they are mentally ill (bipolar), you are not merely disagreeing with them; you are gaslighting them.
Re: (Score:2)
> No. There is no bi-polarity. And the people booing you are not mentally ill.
Bipolar actually has other meanings - #1 from [1]Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com] is in play here.
1) having or marked by two mutually repellent forces or diametrically opposed natures or views
2) having or involving the use of two poles or polarities (e.g. bipolar transistors)
3) relating to, associated with, or occurring in both polar regions (e.g. Arctic/Antarctic birds)
4) psychology : being, characteristic of, or affected with a bipolar disorder
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipolar
Aliens are coming for your jerbs (Score:4, Insightful)
This speaker is annoying. Gratuitous heaping of praise on Bozos. Glorifying tech bro style fearless disruption idiocy. Passive aggressive responses to audience.
My favorite was "only a few years ago AI was not a factor in our lives" being met with cheers. Fucking priceless.
"We have been through this before, these industrial revolutions" no actually this is inductive fantasy that ignores underpinning reality. There can be no new opportunities for anyone when dead labor is *also* able to fill any and all new roles as effectively as people. When AI is like importing an alien from another planet that can do everything you can do but better and for free there are no new opportunities for anyone.
the next industrial revolution (Score:2)
I agree with the speaker, unpopular though it may be with the graduating students and the peanut gallery here.
The AI software assistants I've been using recently are amazingly capable, and their abilities are noticeably improving month by month. They get a huge amount of high quality work done for me and they are inexpensive. They require far less handholding than they did just 6-8 months ago in order to generate good solutions. I do understand why people feel threatened by the technology, but it is inescap
Re: (Score:2)
How many tons of CO2 have you personally generated over the last year by using AI assistants?
I'm serious. Do you know what the number is? Have you made any effort at all to find out, even just a ballpark estimate?
If not, did it ever occur to you that maybe you should try? Or do you think it's not your concern what harm you cause through your actions? Do you look forward to a future where only sociopaths are employable, and those who try to avoid hurting others get left behind?
Maybe you'll object that AI
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Signature checks out, at least.
In this world, AI will have a massively-negative carbon footprint, as it eliminates the need for billions of vehicle trips per year.
The Bubble (Score:3)
Gloria lives in a bubble, and made the mistake of thinking her extremely comfortable, highly secure bubble was the whole world. That's not surprising. Gloria only moves among other bubble people, from one gated bubble pad to the next, in her bubble transport system, where they don't talk about the turbo-fans and ICE V8's that power it all, or the staggering quantity of power it takes to climate control everything in her bubble world.
That's not new. We're ruled by such bubble folk, indulging their bubble concerns, pursing their moral panics, signaling their virtues, and carefully ignoring all else beyond the bubble.
What's new here is this: the consequences of this have reached the privileged students of our prestigious academic system. Suddenly it's not just the hoi polloi on the shit end of the stick. Johnny Winston-Blake IV is also having his future deleted by the bubble people. And he's mad about it.
Exaggerated (Score:2)
AI is important and will change the world (it already has).
But most of it's proponents are foolishly speculating that it will advance at a significant rate, rather than stagnate where it is now.
There will be minor advances in it, but the truth is the upgrades we have seen over the past couple of years are entirely incremental changes brought about my massively expanding processing power, memory and database creation.
There have been NO revoltionary advances. None. It is not growing.
We are discovering ways
AI Art DOES suck. (Score:1)
The push to have "generative" AI rather than assistive AI is what is causing this pushback. Artists want help rendering THEIR vision, not working with AI to create a collaborative vision. Which is how most tools work now. Because AI does NOT understand art. Doesn't get the nuance. So yeah - AI DOES suck. Now. But this latest MCP for Blender is where the tools need to go - not making the shit themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem with AI Art is getting the "AI" to do what you want. I'm currently generating an ebook cover and there would be some great covers if I could tell it "yeah, take the text from image #2, take the background from image #4, take the character from image #5" and have it produce the cover I want the way a human artist could. But instead I generate 500 images, quickly go through them, pick the one that sucks the least and run it through an AI upscale model which can also make style changes while up
Shoes for industry (Score:2)
"In my graduation era, we were faced with the launch of the internet"
Gee lady, I'm so sorry you had to graduate when there was so much opportunity. Nobody was worried about that little screen sucking people's brains out of their eyes. In the 90's the screen had not become the plague it is now.
We can all hope that Jeff Bezos gets to go to Mars and stay there.
It's sad and unfortunate (Score:2)
AI has great potential to help us solve previously intractable problems in science, engineering, medicine, economics and maybe even politics.
What most of the general public sees is slop, scams, and predictions of job loss. It's easy to see why they are turning against it.
Meanwhile, lying salesweasels convince clueless executives to deploy immature tech, with the expected results.
What a crazy way to start the next industrial revolution.
Boo the messenger? (Score:2)
She says the truth, she gets booed because it's not what the audience wants to hear. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Reddit, Slashdot, FB and every other social media platform. There won't be significant change until the audience does more than boo.
It's a boo worth reality (Score:2)
It does suck, and the reality is deserving of boos, however it is reality. The smartest thing we can do is do everything we can to make sure this market shift doesn't only benefit the %1.
You are not the future (Score:2)
Anyone else notice the word missing from all these dreams of a brighter future: Wages.
We're all being gaslighted into a nightmare that a machine doing our jobs for us, will make life better. The Jetsons didn't talk about the construction workers that were no longer needed. Jobs disappearing is not new, because worker's wages has been turning into billionaire's profits for a few hundred years. But that's not the real problem which has a word, too: Productivity. The gaslighting is the idea that produc
I sympathize (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't want to listen to anything that a "Vice President of Strategic Alliances" had to say either.
Re:I sympathize (Score:4, Insightful)
She's not only that, but the founder of her firm isn't a good person, at all. I'd also bet he didn't hire good people. He firm has been described as 'vulture capitalists', so fuck you, graduates.