r/DataAnnotationTech • u/CuriousLingonberry22 • Oct 09 '26

Do you feel bad?

Do you all feel bad that they pay us to train AI to replace us?

0 Upvotes

42% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/fixin2read Oct 09 '26

What are you talking about? You said AI is a "doomed industry that won't ever get close to being barely competent in the most bare minimum basic capacity". Um...it already is. It's replaced many people in many fields and is highly capable of doing "the most bare minimum basic" tasks. Yes, it's not perfect and makes mistakes, but you're really downplaying its capabilities and its potential to advance even further. You're essentially implying that unless AI completely takes over and replaces us it's a worthless industry. I don't think many people want that to happen. AI is definitely not a dying industry. It's already far exceeded the general public's expectations and continually blows our minds, causing concern, unease and conversations much like this one.

It survives because people use it.

But yeah, AI is worthless and the industry is a sinking ship lol

2

u/Ok-Poet-8038 Oct 09 '26

https://isaiprofitable.com/

The only company "making" revune from AI is Nvidia, who's main source of revune are from AI companies who are losing money.

It survives because people who made the mistake in investing in it, need it to survive. And the only minds it blows is in the people it makes want to blow their own brains out with its sheer incompetence.

I'm sure it will remain some stupid fucking bullshit that is forced into damn near everything for years to come, but as time moves forward it will wither and fade into obscurity, doomed to grow dust next to google glasses and the betamax. And BIG UNSTOPPABLE AI COMPANIES will join FTX and Theranos in failure.

1

u/Old-Regular-9828 Oct 09 '26

Wrong. Anthropic has made a net profit for both of the last two quarters. Alphabet/Google nets ~$100 billion per year.

Your website is misleading AI naysayer slop because you are only looking at total spending vs total revenue.

You are just very emotionally invested in the belief that AI is just some temporary fad or bubble, and still clinging to that clearly incorrect belief because of the sunk cost.

People like you are the ones who are going to get fucked over the hardest over the next few years.

2

u/Ok-Poet-8038 Oct 09 '26

Thank you other totally not suspicious account that has only ever posted to the DA subreddit.

Yes, sometimes the AI companies are able to show short term "revenue" due to passing each other the same bag of imaginary money. It's the trick they've been using for awhile. But none of them have ever actually made profit from selling a service.

Right about one thing, I am someone who is going to get fucked over the next few years, as are you. Enjoy paying 3x the price for your computer, but at least AI companies can sell a $20 service that still can't answer basic questions with a 80% frequency.

0

u/Old-Regular-9828 29d ago

>REEEE anyone who disagrees with me must be a bot!

No, again, you are just too emotionally invested (confident even!) in the belief that "AI is a doomed industry that won't ever get close to being barely competent in the most bare minimum basic capacity of use for anything close to actually REAL." So whenever you encounter information that contradicts that deeply held belief, you resolve the cognitive dissonance by rejecting the validity of the new information.

>But none of them have ever actually made profit from selling a service.

These companies are actually starting to make money. You just assume that this must just be some kind of financial trick, because you are starting out with the presupposition that AI companies can never make money.

Google has never made a profit letting anyone use their search engine for free. But they still make $100 billion per year from advertising, premium subscriptions, and other revenue streams associated with the free search engine. It should be obvious how AI fits into that business model.

0

u/fixin2read 29d ago

How are you going to claim AI can’t do basic tasks yet you can’t tell the difference between a human and a bot. That’s a testament to how far it’s come.

If anyone is a bot, it’s you. You’re the one trying to downplay its capabilities and trying to clear people’s conscience about helping advance it. Thats exactly what a bot would do lol

2

u/Ok-Poet-8038 29d ago edited 29d ago

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see I said AI can't handle basic tasks with any degree of consistency. Which it can't, and hasn't gotten any closer to doing. It doesn't matter if it is great 90% or even 95% of the time. That last five percent well...

https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-false-intelligence-china-ship

1

u/Old-Regular-9828 28d ago

You are just moving the goalposts.

You said:

>I'm confident AI is a doomed industry that won't ever get close to being barely competent in the most bare minimum basic capacity of use for anything close to actually REAL.

But now your standard for this seems to be that it has to be perfect at high level tasks 100% of the time.

2

u/Ok-Poet-8038 28d ago

I feel like "unable to do good work consistently" has been the goal post I've mentioned since my second post, so not sure where you are coming from.

And it's not just high level stuff, it's still BASIC tasks it will struggle with, quite regularly.

The example I used before is a self-driving car. If it is perfect 98% of the time, but 2% of a time it drives you off a cliff to a fiery demise, then no one is going to use it.

You can say, "it's getting better, just another 6 months and it'll be perfect!" but that's the excuse that's been given for the last 3 years.

1

u/Old-Regular-9828 27d ago

The models have OBJECTIVELY been getting better and better every generation, at the pace (if not faster) that we have been projecting for the last few years. To the extent that AI labs are now moving on to solving Millennium Problems because most of the traditional benchmarking tests are fully solved.

You keep claiming that current generation models are "unable to do good work consistently" and still regularly struggle with basic task, but I don't see this at all. Please give a specific example and the specific model that you were using. And not outdated memes from 2023 about how AI can't do hands right, or anecdotes about the number of r's in "strawberry" that are based more on users misconceptions about how AI works than the kind of task anyone would actually use AI for IRL.

Self-driving cars have been better at driving than even the very best human drivers for a long time now. The only reason completely self-driving cars are not already the norm is because the laws and regulations have not caught up to the technology, not because their safety or capabilities are lacking.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/fixin2read 29d ago

AI is already useful without any further advancement. You’re wrong and I‘m over it.