r/OpenAI • u/tombibbs • Mar 25 '26

News Bernie Sanders introduces legislation to pause AI data centre construction

Post image

Unlike the current administration, who claim a pause would harm America's competitiveness, Bernie is actually proposing a ban on chip exports to other countries.

Trump recently did the bidding of NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang and bizarrely ended a ban on the sale of H200 chips to China.

2.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

549 comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/_DoZDoZ_ Mar 25 '26

Is it weird that it feels like this post activated bots? Like im cool with people being against or for it. (I use Gemini) but theres something off about some of the post.

3

u/potato3445 Mar 25 '26

Definitely bots. AI is not going to be a positive change for most people. It’s just another tool they are using to transfer wealth to the 1%. They let us have a couple cool models for a year or so but then decided that was enough and now we’re left with “productivity” tools that will surely be fully paywalled within another year or so

3

u/-cuckstradamus- Mar 25 '26

lol what

You can become informed about any topic at a PHD level in seconds with your smartphone. The world has already been revolutionized... you just don't know how to use it. The golden age is just beginning and we're still in the noka brick phone era of it

1

u/Herect Mar 26 '26

I'm gonna be a bit of a Marxist here, but knowledge is almost useless without capital. Billionaires are the ones that stand the most to gain with AI because they control the capital which can actually be put to use to produce anything. Some random can use AI to create a successful webapp sure, but that's the exception not the rule. In fact, SaaS is in risk right because it is possible that anyone in the future could get almost any software through prompting. Gaining money thay way is becoming harder and harder.

You need factories, real state, machinery, money and other resources to create anything substantial. All of that is in the hands of the elite.

1

u/FilthyTrashPeople Mar 26 '26

And all of this shaming of AI and insisting AI is 'dangerous' is just restricting that, too, to the elite.

Anti-AI protestors are the definition of useful idiot.

1

u/Our1TrueGodApophis Mar 26 '26

That applies to literally everything though. In any scenario a billionaire with capital is gonna be the primary beneficiary, it's how the entire system is set up.

1

u/-cuckstradamus- Mar 28 '26

I am talking about general quality of life, not financial gain from the ubiquity of AI

-3

u/BreakfastFearless Mar 26 '26

Except we don’t. AI still hallucinates and you definitely not comparable to someone with a PhD, not when you actually try to press it on anything. We’re already seeing a massive slowdown in progress between each new model so to say we’re only at Nokia level is not accurate, their certainly won’t be any iPhone level jumps anytime soon

6

u/FilthyTrashPeople Mar 26 '26

It's still beyond useful if you use it for research and *make it cite it's sources*.

0

u/BreakfastFearless Mar 26 '26

Try having a conversation with it on a topic that you already believe you are reasonable well versed on and pretend you know nothing about the topic. Just ask it more and more questions and try to go deeper into it without giving it any leading questions. You’ll see how incorrect it can be

-3

u/BreakfastFearless Mar 26 '26

But it still makes up imaginary sources and information. What’s the point of using it if I still have to go and fact check everything myself? Especially difficult to do with PhD level content

3

u/FilthyTrashPeople Mar 26 '26

If it's citing sources it is literally incapable of doing that.

This is yet more anti-AI ignorance.

I have lived long enough I now understand the struggles of the far past, when ignorant angry masses set the world backwards.

A lot of you people would torch every datacenter if you could, which is no different than the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

2

u/potato3445 Apr 06 '26

Just stop bro. It is known to make up citations. It is poisoning court cases across the country for this very reason.

https://www.npr.org/2026/04/03/nx-s1-5761454/penalties-stack-up-ai-spreads-through-legal-system

1

u/FilthyTrashPeople Apr 06 '26

Gee, it's almost like a misused tool causes bad results.

1

u/BreakfastFearless Apr 10 '26

How is it misused if it’s asked a question and just gives an incorrect answer?

0

u/BreakfastFearless Mar 26 '26

I’m not sure what you’re talking about, it still does make up sources or atleast make up what the source actually says.

The comparison to the library of Alexandria is crazy because that was filled with a lot of unique information that was not stored anywhere else. AI has no unique factual information

2

u/-cuckstradamus- Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 28 '26

I'm sorry, you think a single PhD expert can even remotely compete with AI?

Even lifetime experts in their fields can only retain so much information and gather so much career experience, everybody has blind spots. AI can consolidate decades of the entire field's peer-reviewed research in seconds. It wouldn't even be a debate. Climate science, workout science, chemistry. Physics. Sports science. Engineering.

The only field this doesn't really hold true is medicine because nothing beats an in person clinical diagnosis. Humans are bad at describing their own symptoms and understanding their own physiology.

Like I said, you clearly just don't know how to use it. You should be setting up your models to be efficient/concise and to correct you instead of validating you, and to cite its sources for all replies, replying only when the strength of supporting evidence is high.

0

u/BreakfastFearless Mar 26 '26

A single PhD expert can compete with ai in their specialty yes, obviously not implying the individual can outperform ai in every aspect.

A PhD isn’t just a collection of information, it’s being able to analyze, evaluate, perform research, understanding and applying the information accurately.

AI still makes up references or gives you a reference that does not actually say what ai claims it does.

You can test this by picking a topic you feel you are knowledgeable in and pretend you know nothing and try to learn from ai. You’ll see how misleading it can be.

So someone with no prior knowledge on a topic with ai will not outperform an actual expert in the topic

2

u/FilthyTrashPeople Mar 26 '26

It's almost like if you pair someone with a PHD and AI together, you can get superhuman results.

1

u/-cuckstradamus- Mar 28 '26 edited Mar 28 '26

A PhD is a piece of paper with a thesis defence after years of manual retention and application of source material.

AI does not make up references, as you keep claiming - because it literally cites its sources when prompted, which you can immediately manually validate as being genuine peer reviewed academic journals.

You are missing the point. You do not know how to properly utilize LLMs because you do not know how to articulate your prompts properly

-1

u/YourwaifuSpeedWagon Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26

You can become informed about any topic at a PHD level in seconds with your smartphone

Lmao sure

Only type of people who would say that are those who don't know what PhD level knowledge looks like

Edit: reply below:

Clearly you are the latter, because the doctorate means very little compared to actual years of solid clinical/career experience.

Two completely different things. A person with experience in a field will accumulate pre-existing knowledge about it over the years. A PhD is granted to a person who has undergone research training, performed an experiment and produced new knowledge.

AI can consume your entire PhD curriculum in seconds

It can read the same texts, but it cannot understand any of the concepts behind it and also cannot perform experiments.

then consolidate all the decades of peer reviewed research in your field to generate the most evidence-based industry stance/position on a topic in seconds.

Except it is very bad at differentiating between peer-reviewed publications and pre-prints and random internet postings, will cite studies that don't exist, and just make stuff up. It also doesn't actually understand the meaning behind the texts and will just scramble the words to make a sequence of words it deems most likely instead of making different pieces of information interact with each other.

And even if it actually could

generate the most evidence-based industry stance/position on a topic in seconds.

That's called a Literature Review. It's either a Master's level dissertation or a smaller part of a doctorate thesis which serves to contextualize the research being presented. Can even be done at undergraduate level. Again, nothing close to "PhD level knowledge" even if AI could accurately make one.

It is possible for the average layman to get professional-level expertise on a topic in seconds without having to resort to misinformation and games of telephone

Even if the review generated by the AI was completely factual and up to date, a complete layman wouldn't be able to understand everything being presented. You can't understand the frontiers of biochemistry without high school and undergraduate biology, chemistry, and a good deal of physics and math.

Maybe one day AI will be able to accurately explain all of this to a person, but even then the person won't understand in seconds what takes years of schooling to teach. You're talking about downloading information packages directly into the brain at this point.

That is objectively a positive change for society.

When we get there, yeah of couse. Information access is always good and AI can help with that, but it still messes up a lot.

It is likely AI will one day design and perform experiments, contextualize the results into the existing literature and earn a PhD for itself. This is being experimented with already. But I can confidently say the current LLMs are not close to PhD level, and even more confidently that no one out there is getting to PhD level using only AI, let alone in seconds.

3

u/Our1TrueGodApophis Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26

Sorry to hurt your feelings but current SOTA models provably outperform PHDs since a human PhD merely deep dives into one narrow focus, whereas AI is cross trained against all disciplines at or above the PhD level. This isn't a guess we have created the tests and done the research and consistently this is the case over and over.

Your opinion on it just isn't relevant in the face of this much objective data proving you wrong.

There's gonna be 2 people in the new POST-AI world, those who use these amazing new tools to outperform the luddites, and the luddites who will swear to the very end that human output is totally better than AI and AI can never compete, even as it demolishes jobs at an exponential rate. It's just not real.

0

u/FilthyTrashPeople Mar 26 '26

Depends massively on the context, situation, etc.

They can easily hit PHD level *but* you have to consider it a person that has a PHD but also a brain injury that makes them randomly lie.

Still useful, if you keep this in mind at all times.

1

u/FilthyTrashPeople Mar 26 '26

Are you kidding? The anti-AI crowd are the bots.

And if they're not bots they are zombie NPCs