The only two viewpoints on generative AI that get any play among tech punditry are:

1. AI is a lever that helps people do better
2. AI is effective automation that will replace people, or be a threat to them.

The third viewpoint, that AI tools are kind of shit and, if used in their current form at scale by corporations and governments, will “enshittify” large portions of our society, doesn’t seem to register with them at all.

@baldur i think some things that are being dominated by ai aren't as interested in precision as one might hope.

an example is adrian black's recent run in with google detecting his second channel as impersonating his first... it's clear that google uses ai as the front line decision maker. their job is to keep youtube good enough that people will risk being run over by it to keep making it money.

the analogous shotspotter has been caught taking requests from police to relocate detections and change the recorded reasons. their real job is to manage a symbiotic relationship with police departments that enables them to capture public funds. the real job of the platform is to be plausibly helping and avoid causing anyone bad enough reputational harm.

i think more things than we believe are like this due to misaligned metrics, and ai will shine in these areas not because it's better but because it enables connected people to capture money flows that currently go to labor (people who aren't connected).