this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
298 points (98.7% liked)

Fuck AI

6040 readers
1213 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I stole this fair and square. Hope this hasn't been posted yet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sleepundertheleaves 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Really, it reminds me of nothing so much as NFTs. Cryptocurrency in general, sure, but especially NFTs. Banks are cooked! Traditional mortgages are cooked! The stock market is cooked! Fiat currency is cooked! We're going to tokenize everything and transform the world! Give us all your money so you can get in on the ground floor before it's too late!

It was empty hype, and it was obviously empty hype, and it went the same place all empty hype goes.

But it let some very rich people launder a lot of money and get even richer, and isn't that the end goal of the whole economy anyway?

[–] Zos_Kia@jlai.lu 5 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

This comparison is really common but i totally disagree with it.

NFTs are a total invention, the poster child of a solution looking for a problem. Nobody, anywhere on earth, ever wondered how they could get their hand on procedural art and speculate on it. The whole metaverse thing was the same way. The pure product of people who are so detached from normalcy that they can't even begin to fathom what humans tend to like and dislike in the real world.

AI has a million problems which don't need reiterating. I'm not disputing any of that. It may or may not be a technology that's viable in the long term (economically and environmentally), i won't speculate on that. But pre-LLMs there was a huge demand for better natural language processing. For semantically aware programs that are able to generalize and don't need retraining every 4 days. It was kind of the final frontier for software, the limit between "i can do that in a few sprints" and "i'll need a bunch of PhDs and 2 years of runway to possibly maybe make something work".

And i understand that final users only see the dogshit copilot integrations that they never asked for, and which are being pushed to their devices against their will, and becoming a privacy nightmare. And i understand that it's tiring to hear brain-rotted maximalists constantly making up idiotic predictions about humanity's future while they let the "groundbreaking tool of the day" riffle through their inbox and bank statements. But it would be a categorical error to believe that LLMs are anywhere as useless as, say, NFTs or the Metaverse.

[–] sleepundertheleaves 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I kind of agree with you. Both NFTs (and cryptocurrency as a whole) and AI are overhyped - and in the same ways and by a lot of the same shitty people - but cryptocurrency's core product line is a lot more useless than AI's.

I mean, crypto supporters have been saying for almost twenty years (sigh) that Bitcoin and its successors are disruptive technology, that it's too early to see what they can really do, that Bitcoin is going to change the world someday... LLMs, for all their sins, went from zero to integrated into half the devices on Earth and half of private sector employees' workflows in less than four years. Looking at an actual disruptive technology really brings into focus the complete bullshit of cryptocurrency hype.

[–] Zos_Kia@jlai.lu 1 points 1 hour ago

Looking at an actual disruptive technology really brings into focus the complete bullshit of cryptocurrency hype.

That's my feeling too. I do pray every day that the house of cards crumbles, but the tech is really something.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

NFTs were a thing before they became associated with monkey images. They have a real use case, and arguably are the most useful thing in the whole cryptocurrency space. I know it sounds crazy, but hear me out on this. And before you ask, I don't own any NFTs.

NFTs were never meant to represent ownership rights to monkey pictures, and that is indeed a stupid use case with absolutely no utility. They were intended to represent ownership rights to tangible, real-life assets, like stocks, bonds, or land. The idea was that you could have any of these assets, which in real life typically take the form of a paper certificate or digital book entry, and then replace it with an NFT so you can do fun stuff with it. Most of the benefit comes from two properties: firstly, that everything done on a blockchain needs to be authenticated using cryptographic keys, and secondly, the calculations which occur must come from public source code which people can audit and trust (note: blockchains typically punish excessively complicated code by making it more expensive to run), and therefore automated programs can carry out many actions typically entrusted to humans.

Let me give some actual examples o real-world utility:

  • Land registry: An NFT deed can be recorded on a public blockchain. Past transfer history can be seen, and transferring that deed would require a cryptographic signature from the owner. Depending on how the system is designed, it can also be made to require a secondary signature, which could represent a notary stamp issued by a notary public. This system is much more resistant to low-level deed fraud which pops up on local news channels from time to time.
  • Public asset transfers: The land registry concept can be expanded to include everything, including bonds and stocks, all of which would require cryptographic signatures to transfer, and which leave records of the transfer, useful for law enforcement purposes or to detect fraud.
  • Virtual mortgage: An NFT can be mortgaged, and that mortgage could also be optionally crowdfunded (if the system allows for it). Interest payments would be calculated automatically, and the presence of the mortgage would encumber the deed token which prevents it from being transferred. While the technical capability exists to allow the token to be repossessed and auctioned off automatically if the mortgage is defaulted, obviously this is not a good idea to automate and there would need to be court supervision
  • Escrow: A deed token can be held by an automated escrow which transfers the deed upon payment of an agreed purchase price.
  • Collateralised loan: Similar concept to the mortgage, but can use an NFT representing some other tangible asset instead, like stock certificates and bonds.
  • Auctions: NFT deeds, bonds, and stocks can be sold at auction by automated auctioneer programs which automatically collect payment from the winning bidder and transfer the token. This can be combined with the escrow from before.
  • Stock exchange: Stock exchanges already sort of exist. They are called DEXes. But with NFTs that represent actual stock then they can operate as real stock exchanges. The benefit of doing it this way is that because everything is public and verifiable, it's easier to catch and prove securities fraud and insider trading.
  • Government bond: Government bonds can automatically pay out their interest and maturity according to the terms of the bond. They can also be pledged as collateral for loans (see above).
  • Identity control: It is possible to restrict any or all functionality for any given NFT by defining the accounts allowed to interact with it. The reason I mention this is because it is usually desirable to know who the real-life identity behind an action is. It is possible to design a system where only accounts tied to real-world identities can interact with the financial system.
[–] sleepundertheleaves 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I don't think any of your examples are actual improvements - they just open up exciting new opportunities for inefficiency, fraud, grift, and graft, while creating a new barrier to entry (technological literacy regarding cryptocurrency) for anyone who wants to safely use them.

I mean, for example, blockchains are trustless systems, but land ownership isn't a trustless system - the government, generally through the judicial system, is the final arbiter of who owns land. So either the government manages land records on its own spreadsheets, or you use a blockchain, which is just a spreadsheet with extra steps, and has to have a judicial override allowing land tokens to be transferred without the owner's consent, which eliminates one of the biggest reasons to use a blockchain in the first place.

And besides that, if all homeowners are publicly known and identified on that blockchain, all homeowners immediately become targets for identity and private key theft. Somebody forging a deed to my house and selling it to a third party who shows up expecting to move in sucks. Somebody stealing my private keys because my 5-year-old downloaded an Italian brainrot generator with a malicious payload, and then selling those keys to a third party, who shows up expecting to move in, also sucks, and has much less of a paper trail that I can use to prove the fraud.

Same with auctions, with the stock exchange, and so on - NFTs don't offer any real improvements over online databases, and while they make certain types of fraud more difficult, they create opportunities for new types of fraud that the legal system has much less experience dealing with.

[–] Zos_Kia@jlai.lu 3 points 6 hours ago

I think all those features are already available and working really well in a high-trust society. In any non-crumbling modern country you already have trust systems embedded in people and institutions, not algorithms, and when they fail you have a court system where another human can disentangle the situation and rule one way or the other. This is a much more desirable state than a low-trust society with algorithmically enforced rules.

Because when you fall in a blockchain edge case, you're fucked and truly fucked. Nobody can come up and save your ass if someone manages to take advantage of you despite the algorithmic safeguards (which may or may not be well coded themselves). Nobody can help if you die suddenly without handing your crypto keys to a trusted party. This kind of problems, which are trivially solved in the real world, are literally impossible to solve in a blockchain.

Sure, fraud and bad faith can happen in real world institutions, but that's really a marginal risk, everyday millions of transactions go on without a hitch. And when something fails there's always a chance of getting your day in court. On average, blockchain "solves" a problem which most people will never encounter in their life. I would imagine that there are interesting applications of the tech in high-stakes boring businesses such as logistics and banking but that's infrastructure that the end user would never even know exists.