- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The rapid spread of artificial intelligence has people wondering: who’s most likely to embrace AI in their daily lives? Many assume it’s the tech-savvy – those who understand how AI works – who are most eager to adopt it.
Surprisingly, our new research (published in the Journal of Marketing) finds the opposite. People with less knowledge about AI are actually more open to using the technology. We call this difference in adoption propensity the “lower literacy-higher receptivity” link.
You must log in or register to comment.
How exactly is this a surprise to anyone when the same applied to crypto and NFTs already? AI and blockchain technologies are useful to experts in tiny niches so far but that’s not the usual tech savvy user. For the end user it’s just a toy with little use cases.
“Surprisingly”? This should be a surprise to no one who is paying any kind of attention to any online communities where techy people post.
Hey, buy my new CoinCoin! No, don’t research what it is, just buy it!
Especially on Lemmy. Every misspelling is “AI” to some of these anti-AI whackos. It’s like they’ve never seen shit webpages before. They don’t know that AI spans thousands of different task types, and generalized AI is nowhere near being accomplished.
Those that really understand what “AI” consists of, understand it’s got weaknesses and strengths. And that those strengths can be used for both good things, and bad things.
I’m just annoyed that the term AI has been co-opted now to refer to pretty much any form of machine learning. Stuff gets called AI today that wouldn’t have been considered AI even 10 years ago. I think that’s part of what’s driving peoples ridiculous expectations because they hear AI and they expect actual AI not a glorified smart fill.
Artificial intelligence = machine learning = statistics = just math
Someone should do a Scooby doo meme with the taking the mask off frame multiple times in a row
“Just” math?! Math is everything
Math doesn’t exist its imaginary. Its an impossible ideal that just so happens to be useful at predicting our universe.
I think this is true for a lot of things. iPhones, Nike, Spam
The more I’ve learned about technology, the more hardline I’ve become against having it in my life.
The world is not a blank slate to paint on. Every new thing that you add to your life takes away something which used to be there in previous generations, and the consequences of such can be far reaching and unpredictable. Society as it was, was not built overnight through deliberate intention, but was hard won by millennia of blood, sweat and tears. Changing everything now on the whims of fully grown toddlers who are so wealthy that they’ve never even been aware of the existence of the real world is the peak of insanity.
Neither the position to keep all the old solutions because they are old nor to adopt all the new solutions because they are new is sensible.
Some old solutions worked in the past and don’t work anymore because the actual world around us changed (the bits outside our control, e.g. some resources might be more sparse but were more plentiful in the past, human populations are larger, the world is more interconnected,…).
Some old solutions appeared to work in the past because we didn’t have the knowledge about their flaws yet but now that we do we need new ones.
Some new solutions are genuine improvements, others are merely sold by marketing and hype.
Some new solutions have studies, data or even logic and math backing them up while others are adopted on a whim or even contrary to evidence or logic.
We can not escape the fact that the world is complex and requires evaluation on a case by case basis and simplistic positions like “keep everything old” or “replace everything old” do not work.
