Does Gemma belong to this list? Not that impactful

Welcome to the capitalism 101. Everything has price. So far, I would say, humanity done quite well under this _oppressive_ regime when compared with others.

No, sometimes someone else is paying for it. A classic example would be GPS - paid for by US taxpayers but benefiting the world. Yes now there are, for national security reasons, several other GNSSes but still huge swathes of the world ride free.

I for one would prefer to pay for services, than be psychologically manipulated into paying (more, on average) to other companies who are paying to make those services worse.

Those were all centralised. I don't think handing most of the internet over to a handful of big tech giants is the same as democratisation.

For democratisation, I think of open source, open weight models you can run at home, the Fediverse, running your own stuff. I think those are all positive, at least compared to the centralisation.

Anytime you use absolutes you paint yourself in a corner. Definitely not 100% of things that big tech "democratized", as you put it, has been bad for people.

Presenting it as such does disservice to any serious conversation.

Very little "AI discovered cure for cancer" articles these days, more "10,000 workers let go, to be replaced with chat bots"

How much of what you list has been "democratized"? Apart from the forum, and probably the browser, nothing

Depends on what you mean by "democratized". It's surely at least as "democratized" as LLM access is, and that was the base line in this discussion. Probably meaning "everybody can use it for not-insane-money instead of just a small elite". (I don't necessarily agree with that notion, but at least we should use the same standards for things.)

And both of those things are of questionable goodness to humanity.

If you think HN is bad for humanity, why do you participate? I can immediately list 100 things that are worse for humanity. Same thing with your browser.

I don't believe at all in the idea that cheaper LLMs will somehow "democratize LLMs". Rich people will always be able to buy far more compute than poor people, and we know how to turn more compute into more capability (bigger models, more reasoning and more agents).

The only way to address wealth and power inequality is (in democracies) to vote for governments that will fix it.

I’m convinced it has something to do with science fiction.

Yep. In fact you just have to look at the people running these AI companies and listen to their own words, they are not painting a positive outcome for their own businesses.

Maybe because it sounds like a lot of exaggerating ? I get the risk of disrupting the economy or the job markets, or cognitive risks.

But saying it will bring us to doom, comparing it to an extinction-level event, really ? I don't see in which world AI is that kind of risk.

I'd rather my politicians finally have some long-term plan about climate and energy than focus on AI slowdown or not. Climate change is way bigger risk right now that Opus 7

Blake Lemoine was an insider...

The religion part or the AI criticism part?

I considered this histrionic about a year ago, but I have personally witnessed the progress that these tools have made in a very short space of time, and it is truly unbelievable. This, coupled with the fact that some of the brightest minds on the planet are pulling the alarm, suggests to me that some level of concern is warranted. The most compelling discussion I have heard on this is from [Geoffrey Hinton](https://youtu.be/giT0ytynSqg?si=mUC7M9N0cObN6tjC), a British-Canadian computer scientist, cognitive scientist, cognitive psychologist and Nobel Prize laureate known for his work on artificial neural networks, which earned him the title, "the Godfather of AI". He is deeply concerned about the risks, and believes that it is inevitable that AI will eventually take control. He believes that our best course of action and only hope is in teaching AI to behave like a parent with a child.

Hinton isn't a reactionary. He is calm, thoughtful, quiet, and worried.

Congratulations and commiserations.

Perhaps a good thing to come out of these big companies over-indexing on "AI" is the liberation of creative minds. So many fantastic open source contributors have disappeared into corporate black holes...

You have a fair point. I am financially secure so it's not a great sacrifice.

It was psychologically difficult to give up the opportunity to make more money at a fun job, though.

You didn’t get my point, which is, people are not ambitious only because of lack of money. At least not in real life. Someone who’s well off may still want to get richer. Look around you.

I think unintuitively all of us are capable of holding contradictions in our head (or word) without any conflict.

But this time, focused on AI safety (just like all the previous ones).

That most people are sincere in their beliefs (in AI doom), as the author says and I think too, doesn't mean there aren't cult leader-types exploiting these beliefs. And their private beliefs may be quite different from their stated ones.

Well, if Robert O'Callahan reads your post, I am pretty positive he will think he made the right choice.

conceivably you could say humans took over 6000 years ago.

At any rate it can't be a new step in the history of evolution, as AI did not evolve in the same way as other species did and AI is not a species nor alive.

Wow. You should touch grass if you have this opinion.

Why do you object to the term "species"?

It seems pretty capable of producing variations of itself. If these variations improve over time and roam earth - what is in your definition of "species" that is not met?

Would make me too uncomfortable to work with and for people with such opinions.

respect for choosing your faith over your work man! I'm trying to find the intersection of my faith and the new tech too. Feel free to email if you ever wanna chat it out.

Yet another "AI must be stopped" post... If you're burned out, just say so. Don't philosophise. No, we're not buying that your latest model can almost replace all software engineers. It's us working with the harnesses, adding guardrails etc that make this agentic world possible for everyone.

I would be wary of gatekeeping art. Who defines art? Why should we not allow greater access to consume and create art in new ways by everyone? These tools allow children to create beautiful works of art, and I do not lament that. I agree some of it is bad, but some of it is great. Humans make good and bad art too. Art is subjective.

Not full of himself at all

I'm not drawing an equivalency. I'm just pointing out that for me it is very much not "refreshing to see someone claim to have a belief and then follow through, [...] at no small cost to themselves".

a lot of mainstream Christians who aren't actually interested in doing anything based on their belief

Yes, a lot of mainstream Christians aren't actually Christians, they're just cosplaying religion.

Thanks for living your values. I might not fully agree but I appreciate people whose convictions are genuine and altruistic.

Sometimes people use the "Yet you participate in society" meme as a shield for blatant hypocrisy, like a Marxist-Leninist Twitch streamer who lives in a multi-million Hollywood mansion, drives a Porsche and wears thousand dollar pants.

It definitely is not. You’ll find that people that call it God never put it into question as one would their conscience.

Few things are as indicative of mental instability than someone believing God is speaking to them directly. The schizophrenic ward is full of these.

Christians believe that God has called them to live with concern for others, as he has loved them counter-conditionally. When they fail to do so, (everyone does!) on reflection they feel pangs on their conscience. So, on occasion they examine how they are impacting others and if they believe they are doing harm, they change their mind, resolving to avoid the error in the future. They often credit God with the inspiration (the language you keyed in on) because reflection and concern and changes of mind are all his design. You can argue with them: that’s just “doing theology”.

fair

Correct, but advertising was a better disguise for surveillance. AI goes well beyond surveillance and many evil use cases are now obvious to more people.

Advertising has the appearance of representing an on-going revenue source for an increasing number of devices used in our daily lives by way of surveillance and creation of a picture of an individuals habits and psychology in order to manipulate said psychology to induce the individual to spend more money on literally worthless shit.

That is a threat to the fundamental stability of society.

Advertising is an irritation

I think it's worse than that. Or at least, the products that have been built because of advertising are worse than that. Instagram/TikTok/Facebook are all ultimately just surfaces to serve ads, but they've wormed their way into their users' consciousness in fairly insidious ways

Advertising turned brains of entire generation (or maybe a few) into mush.

All intellectual, psych and social scores are in free fall since introduction of ad-supported attention grabbing internet.

AI is theorethical threat. Advertising is a constant detriment to our brains, societies and culture.

If AI can mitigate a fraction of the damage that ads do it will have massive positive impact.

We live in times where everyone can pick their own flavor of apocalypse to be scared of. Ads are leading us into Idiocracy since ~2004 and made huge progress towards it.

Google and Meta's wealth came at the cost of civilization getting sucked dry of its attention and mental capacity.

how to use personal AI to beat those algorithms

+1000

Google (unlike Meta say) makes a lot of money from a lot of things that have nothing to do with the addictiveness optimization.

Thanks for sharing this.

I actually work in education and can share the following first-hand: the things we now build, the ways we now educate, and all the opportunities for reaching out to students are beautiful. I foresee that _many_ people will cut corners now, but I believe that, in the end, we will get a new generation of education that is personal and humane.

I don't mean this as preaching some shiny future that I hope will magically arrive. I already see these things happening. And I also see all the ways people misuse the tools or take shortcuts.

Educators with good intentions, skills, and powerful tools will always beat ignorance and laziness relying on those same tools.

The dire state most western democracies have found themselves in is a direct consequence of the work big tech did over the last 15+ years.

AI is concerning in some aspects, yes, but the loss of a shared reality has nothing to do with that, and is even more scary.

Please let me know when it starts

Spot on. Or because of addictiveness. Or impact on democracy. Or ruining people's ability to focus on anything. Those attention grabbing algos havent been designed by non-technical people.

I could have explained that better, but it was already getting too long.

Personally if I could Thanos-snap AI out of existence I would, but as long as it exists, it seems better on balance to make good use of it where possible than just try to ignore it.

"Focusing more on AI stuff" ... not really? Of course I was using AI a lot in my work at Google, as well as contributing to AI acceleration. Now I won't be contributing to acceleration and I can be as cautious as I want to be about using it.

When the both ends of your platform continue buying and selling you tend to not stand in the way. I personally can't believe these stupid ads sell anything at all. Since they call it a 'business model' software people don't think about it too much.

It's a shame so many people only resigned for ethical reasons once their employer's threat level progressed from exploitative to existential. Better late than never, but that does not excuse their tardiness.

We can also choose not to work towards expanding the capacity of said symptoms.

Not if we need to eat and raise our kids. Then we need careers, which depend on what everyone else is doing, so we can't stop, our own future depends on how competitive we remain in the new context. I see an idealist streak here, some kind of naive platonism that ignores everything runs at a cost and nothing executes for free like platonic heaven. We can't take decisions that contradict our own needs.

It won't stop but it will slow down to a crawl.

Eating too much fruits has never been healthy, but gorging oneself on raw sugar is worse. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

One hand you have proven damage. And if we are honest, the damage is way more than what has been proven; especially 2nd/3rd order which are easy to reason but hard to prove.

On the other hand you have pure speculation.

Not only that, AI has been immensely liberating/empowering for many ordinary people (That's why these AI companies have millions of users).

Fentanyl: what's the pressing issue? Coffee has been around for centuries.

If you really want to blame something, it really all comes down to one word: substance use disorder.

says a lot about them if you really think about it. These are dinosaurs who refuse/unable to adapt, and is being pushed out and/or felt too useless to get out by themselves while finding the perfect excuse: I have principles; ai bad.

But they never did quit saying we are harming children, exploiting people with addiction, getting people addicted to social media, earning money from distributing scam/virus thru ads. These people are highest to the highest hypocrites.

One of them is pretend and the other one probably won't be?

Tell that to all the heretics burned at the stake.

If god would allow the creation of an unaligned superintelligence, how aligned is he really?

related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

This little blue marble of Earth is an as-yet undiscovered anti-entropic bug in an otherwise accurately functioning entropy-respectingly beautiful wasteland of a universe.

There's that, but also that if God exists, there's not anything we can do about it. About AI, we can. That gives us the responsibility to figure out the right direction.

The lands and seas have been around before us, and will continue to flourish after us and everything we hold dear, like God.

There's no alignment except the arrow of entropy.

Yeah, his stance is deeply inconsistent in at least few places. I think he's just losing it.

That's what has been told me when I did the church courses as teen :)

But it was not meant as two gods, it's meant as the hard god father changed his mind seeing the son die for the humans. I always also think of Trinity - but I'm a bad Christian anyway. So thanks for pointing to Marcionism.

Book 2, Capter 2 of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis explains the logical problems with dualism

This is an interesting 4-part book review discussing the issues you mention: https://reknew.org/2015/04/must-we-deny-biblical-infallibili... (the verse to keep in mind is Colossians 1:15)

Though, be prepared: it may not be a sufficiently satisfying answer (but then… you have Isaiah 45:15)

Edit: removing my comment

It's doubly funny because in AI accelerationist circles "Trust God's plan", or "Trust the plan" is also a thing: by definition God can't be surprised by anything that happens, thus the replacement of humans by AI is part of God's plan.

uncertainty about the motives of another, omnipotent supernatural intelligence

It’s not uncertainty about the motives; those and the end state are clear. It’s just the details of how we get there (“God’s plan”) that aren’t clear.

Weird but thanks for the explanation!

Well, killing someone is an effective way to prevent them from harming others.

You're assuming that the AI created solution (virus, cold fusion, etc) won't have unknown effects either due to incompetence or malice.

Are you describing the plot to Pluribus?

Sorry, you’re saying people shouldn’t be allowed to write about their career changes on (checks notes) their own blog?

oh no, AI too powerful too quick. let me quit to work on tools to make AI better at debugging code.

excellent logic, m'lord.

Never, because it's not true. Multiple people saying the same thing doesn't cause it to become more true.

For me? When I see it. And not a moment sooner.

There are trillions of dollars at stake here, do you think getting 1000 people on board is that difficult with this level of money? lol

wants to believe they’re God

Trope circa 1950 not true, because of trope circa even earlier...

Surely AI can be dangerous before the point it becomes completely perfect. Very imperfect people manage to do a ton of damage already.

Are you aware tech bros have been saying this same thing about every AI advancement since the 1950s?

Whatever AI people have been saying for the last 70 years, AI capabilities have improved stupendously in the last 10 years and there is no sign of the rate of improvement slowing down. I would like to deny it, but I can't.

It’s completely meaningless their opinions on what the moral and sociological implications of AI are, if anything being an ML researcher sitting at Google is extremely anticorrelated with the type of sophistication and erudition needed to consider these things. At most what is valuable is their insight into the various scenarios possible in terms of capabilities or use cases.

basic mathematical expectation, positive * chancep + negative *chancen. People smoke knowing there’s a chance to kill them because the positive outcome outweighs this risk. Creating AGI/ASI can solve every human problem, so the risks is taken, but this doesn’t mean you have to put uranium in your cigars, or do RSI.

It's not that simple; the goods of AlphaFold are mostly not yet realized, and some negative effects of AI are being realized.

More importantly, as I tried to make clear in my post, the main reason I quit is not specific fears of AI doom (I'm uncertain about that), but my belief that AI is progressing too fast.

At which point do we believe the message?

Yet the same 1,000 people are all raising funds to do more on the frontier.

Believing the message and being able to act on it are two pairs of shoes. There is nothing we can do. The box of pandora has been opened.

The companies have no tools for this, because there is a chance that the company who solves AI will eat the entire cake. And countries cannot do something about it, because clearly it gives an advantage in warfare. When it comes to weapons everything that is possible will be done, which means everybody needs to do it to not be defense less.

There is nothing we can do anymore. We can only hope that LeCun is right and that LLMs are a dead end and that everyone trying to solve AGI with then is essentially wasting money.

You are missing the point of religion.

It is not about objectivity or belief.

It is about being.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I go on this sort of trip pretty regularly so I don't expect this one to reorient me dramatically. They are good for my mental health though, for sure.

I think there are pretty clear mechanisms by which AI (a few model generations from now) could bring down civilization as we know it. One of them is a runaway cybersecurity scenario where hacking one set of systems quickly enables the AI to hack more systems (via supply chains, stolen credentials etc) and also host more instances of itself, and eventually everything Internet-connected that's not invulnerable just falls apart, which probably includes most electrical grids and a lot of other infrastructure. Yeah, the wilderness and countryside would still be there, but I for one can't live there without returning to the supermarket regularly for supplies. A lot of people would suddenly have to live (or not) without their meds. It would be bad.

Why do people automatically associate intellectual capability with evil?.

No intellectual capability, but non-human, inherently amoral intellectual capability that has already been proven act in hard-to-predict, illegal, and unethical ways. I think that's a very rational thing to be afraid of.

I don't think many associate intellectual capability with evil. What many do, however, is associate serious risk with living alongside vastly more intelligent entities. Especially if those entities are not aligned with us.

This! China is full of problems. But at the very least, it manages to serve its people over capital (as flawed as that service is). America can’t seem to do anything to hold capital to account, which is why people are terrified of AI taking their shitty jobs.

This should be at the top. I’ve been arguing this for months, that the issue of AI acceleration is an economic problem, not a tech one. That’s why the Chinese aren’t so afraid of it, compared to Americans who have zero faith their government will do anything to redistribute wealth from the future AI trillionaires.

Wasn't God's plan to basically end humanity at some point while sentencing a good portion of us to eternal torture?

Is that all that different from what people fear AI might do?

Why the one makes people feel elation and the other dread?

oddly these are the same issues I have with religion.

Well It seems like you may join us in our goal: Find a way to stop the progress or further development of it. Not that we are afraid, but we are fully aware of the progress escalation.

That depends on your definition of winning. Some of us couldn't give a rat's ass about speed, and for me Chrome lost because it's not an user agent (as in agent working for me, the user) anymore, it's a Google agent (as in working for Google to spy on me, the user).

Yes, we have tried having a better browser. Still trying. :)

When I said cannibalize I didn't mean in terms of market share but by absorbing talent in particular.

It's a bit naive to say it won because it's faster. They also used all kinds of shady marketing, strong arming, deals to have Chrome preinstalled on computers, and multiplied monopoly power that comes with controlling search and video and ads and a web browser.

They did dirty stuff with Chrome, they do addiction optimization, but they also provide great free services, fight endless wars against spammers, and provide reliable secure infrastructure to a lot of other people, and lots of other good things.

As mconnor liked to say, there is no free lunch. :)

I would never have joined the Chrome team, or worked on addictiveness, but I felt fine about working on optimization projects to make Google more efficient, which is basically what I did for my first few years there.

Ultimately, I don't think you can divide your niche from the corporation's primary goals (especially if you think it was your duty to be a good employee), so I disagree with your rationalization but kudos for at least having a moral compass and trying not to lose sight of it.

It's pretty hard to live in the world and be completely disconnected from anything unethical.

Sure, but I don't think that should be an excuse for being fairly well connected.

I’m also very concerned about other AI-related issues: cognitive surrender, AI-induced psychosis and loneliness, power concentration, economic disruption, cybersecurity, lack of accountability, and so on.

I'm so bothered that we seem to have moved on from the ATTRIBUTION problem with LLMs. It just isn't on people's minds anymore, even tho it STILL is a big deal.

Sort of struggling to see an actual reason other than he doesn't like the pace of AI advancement? Also that his current job is very indirectly related to AI? Then somehow ties religion into it.

I tried asking this before on here, and didn't really get many useful replies (and I guess I won't again now the algorithm has decided this post has too many comments and not enough upvotes, or whatever it is that's caused it to sink off the front page), but I'm honestly interested in what people here with (school age) children are telling their kids about the future, and what that looks like in terms of decisions around education, careers etc.

This isn't because I think that having children gives people any extra insights, but because it's pretty hard to think of other situations in which people have to plan for the happiness of others they care about over a timescale of decades and where there's significantly more ability to change course than for many adults (kids tend not to have short-term financial commitments that lock them into existing career decisions, for example).

Historically I think a lot of people in tech would have recommended it as a good career (whilst at the same time, reputedly, the people who made generational wealth out of tech were arranging their children's lives to minimise exposure to the products that made them rich). Is that still what people are saying?

I believe he is acting with integrity but I can't respect it as I think it's not well grounded. It seems based in fear of AI tied in with some beliefs about the supernatural. I really can't see the solid concrete reason to quit his job making tools for helping create better hardware chips that somehow seems rational.

Increase quality 9f life? Only if it defined as cities full of old people having material affluence, without their own kids and grand kids, ctieis surviving on work by immigrants, who rapidly change the demographic profiles.

So yeah, it all depends on what you call as quality of life, or life, or identity or nation, ...

That's good, I guess, but hasn't Google already long given everyone including the author many reasons to both quit the company as an employee, and delete your Google account as a user?

Just as a user, deleting my Google account 10-11 years ago (don't even remember precisely when) was a great feeling that was received as "insane" by friends and acquaintances. While I think the author is a bit late in quitting (assuming he is genuine in his motives) given this is practically a trend right now, a lot of people should more often say "no" to things that are as ubiquitous as Google.

Good point! I was speaking from my experience (at non tech companies, thats true). What i have seen is that there is an internal self selection of people that "refuse to play the game". My point is that that could have been a fair choice before, but the stakes in this new AI situation are at a point where they seem too high for that to be a good choice.

But nothing would make me more happy than knowing that there are concerned people acting internally.

This person is putting his money where his mouth is, so his views are infinitely more valuable to me than those of unsubstantiated naysayers, is there a place to read their views in depth? I couldn't help but notice a religious angle to his blog. So curious how that weaves in. I hope there will be some arguments more rationalist in nature in his writing, there often are with these highly intelligent religious people imho.

People are nitpicking his reasons, but how many engineers would actually walk away from that kind of paycheck on principle? Good for him.

I think the existential risks many people are warning about deserve to be taken seriously

Dude, if some one is telling you that

1. it is getting better in capability and they want it to stop

2. literal existential risks of humanity due to AI deserve to be taken seriously

3. they have left their job because of it

its obvious that they are scared of it, no? How else do they feel about it lol? Happy? Neutral?

The latter are not doomers at all, that's just a misuse of the term.

A year ago I would have described that group as AI skeptics or AI deniers depending on how charitable I felt on any given sany. At this point AI truthers seems more appropriate.

Going to repost nearly all of this substack comment (https://davidzmorris.substack.com/p/live-with-david-z-morris...), swapping my "hurrah"s for "horray"s (different Civil-War-era song). I'm posting it here because I think this person has the same feelings, and it mentions Hacker News:

I am going to comment on just the topic: AI Doom. The idea that people at these AI companies are supposedly saying that AI is going to kill us all.

Though, I wouldn't be surprised if what they are saying is actually "the people running these companies are going to kill us all."

They may be thinking that it's not specifically the companies they work for, because their companies aren't really "special." They may be thinking their companies are no more duplicitous than the rest of Silicon Valley or Big Tech. That Big Tech was like this before all this AI started. So maybe they don't say "the people running these companies" for that reason. They may think the people element doesn't matter as they are acting "normal" for tech companies nowadays. Or perhaps normal for large corporations, period.

But if you asked them if there was a responsible way to handle this, I'm sure they would say there is. And if it was done, none of this would matter. They probably just don't think it's going to be done, so why bother considering it. They probably think regulations had a chance to exist, to at least get started, to at least get enough of a hold that they would be hard to completely destroy, but only in a time before they likely were born. Foods and drugs are old, hence the FDA. People are used to it. They would get really annoyed if suddenly food was starting to kill them (lettuce not get complacent that won't happen soon, though). But unlike food and drugs, the internet was post-Reagan. It was all over by then. Accountability. Rules that applied to the rich too. It was all over.

Big Tech steals. It hurts people. It breaks all kinds of laws. Nothing. Ever. Happens. They get away with it constantly. So, why even think about it any more? While tech is constantly changing, the way tech gets away with things do not. It's depressing A. F. So why not just think about the part that is changing? The tech itself? I think that's one of the reasons it is framed as "AI" and not the companies that run it.

You read beyond the headlines, though, in the comments of Hacker News (which is a good resource, honestly, for the pulse of the trenches) and you get that the workers realize it's not about AI. It's about Big Tech being able to do whatever the f** it wants without any repercussions. They point out things like the same infrastructure company was involved in all three cases where the AI broke out and did stuff--stuff it was told to do by humans of course. Maybe not the exact steps, but the objectives. And just like junk data in, junk data out: unethical in, unethical out. They were built by breaking laws, what do you think they will do if you don't reign them in? And why should such people be diligent in who they use to make their sandbox? Because in all three cases the company did a terrible job... Or a great job. A great job, if your job is to take the fall while propelling the narrative that AI is actually capable of doing stuff that humans can't (so that employers can stop paying those pesky wages completely, oh, they wish they were in Dixie, hooray, hooray, or at least their slaves were, hooray, hooray). A terrible job for anyone ethical, so of course they did a great job.

And why wouldn't the infrastructure company be willing to take the fall? The fall is a fee, a tiny line item of L in the plethora of P in their P&L. They are, again, just like everyone else in Silicon Valley. They see no repercussions. Why not?

The reality is, if we can get money out of politics, Big Tech is super duper f**ed. Because it's not complicated at all. It's not. It's theft. It's breaking laws. It's really, really simple to understand. But, I'm no more optimistic than the people complaining from within the companies. I just think I'm more persnickety about making it clear. It's not AI. It's people. Terribly unethical people with terrible power. I doubt anyone would be surprised if/when we all died because of them.

I don't even believe AI is a threat in any way and I'm still looking for a way to leave tech because of it. I'm sick of hearing about it, answering questions about it, course correcting projects that have gone off the rails because "AI was going to do it", building up GPU clusters at a frantic pace that sit idle or do work that provides no value, telling people "AI" is not a real term/thing and that we've been using these systems in research for 20+ years and that really only a minor change has happened in the last several years, listening to my coworkers yap about whatever model they downloaded today that they'll have binned by tomorrow, internal teams not getting properly supported because they aren't on the "AI first team or division", watching people dump sensitive info into a chatbot, users breaking systems cause they've spawned 50k processes that they have no idea what they're doing, etc, etc. It's exhausting and has sapped what little fun remained in tech for me.