My kid was an excited Duolingo user who immediately cut it off entirely as soon as he heard that they were doing something with AI. That was all it took. He heard "Duolingo's AI now" on some YouTube video, and it was immediately dead to him.
I don't think people understand just how viscerally negative the perception of AI is for the youth.
Duolingo is a game, they publish papers studying the addictive properties of their product I comparison to slot machines. They are incentivized heavily to not produce fluent learners. If he's being pushed in another direction to learn, for whatever reason, all the better for him.
Duolingo used to be a very effective gamified language learning system.
Then they decided they cared more about profits than providing a quality product.
Now they are best known for their dark patterns.
Yep, I noticed recently that on their official research portal they stopped publishing anything publicly in I think 2021. The last couple of articles before that were along these lines:
https://research.duolingo.com/papers/yancey.kdd20.pdf
I assume all the research after this point is too revealing to publish.
I wouldn’t call them effective as much as motivating. I think for people who would not be motivated otherwise, this methodology is fine actually, as the alternative is probably nothing. However if you are motivated, almost any other method is more effective then DuoLingo (or alternatives), including more effective then the old DuoLingo with the forums and everything.
Apparently Samsung sells washing machines with AI. Yeah...
It's been a little over a year, but back when I was using the app, Duolingo advertised their own AI features within the app itself. I wonder if they still do, and if so, why it took watching a YouTube video for it to sink in...
[flagged]
Not the person you asked, but my nephews and mentees (all under 18), very plainly see it as the destruction of their own future careers (regardless of field), assimilation of everything meaningful humans have ever created into a copy machine , massive privacy violations, wrecking the environment and generally run by some of the biggest sociopaths in human history. When looking at it practically over the last few years, I think a lot of younger folk don’t see any upsides.
I’m very pro-AI myself, but think the kids are quite right in their perspective, and that the tech companies designing and pushing this tech are in for a bad time when this wave finally comes crashing down on them.
That makes sense and matches my perspective, thanks for answering.
I don't normally see anyone on this site admit they are afraid of losing their jobs.
My comment here repeats that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48260369
Personally I don't think the environment is a factor, because young people seem just fine with crypto. I also don't think the privacy issue is a factor because young people don't have much that can be stolen, and if anything they're the ones stealing (movies etc) without guilt.
That's an interesting point regarding crypto. My guess is that most young people have very low exposure to crypto, with it being kind of a niche subcultural thing at this point after its height of cultural relevance in 2021, whereas AI is simply everywhere and is inescapable.
And I'm frequently amazed how tone deaf tech people are and how disconnected from the general population. ;)
OK got it.
Its perfectly fine to automate away everyone else's job...except their own and their immediate family's. Then we're supposed to be anti-tech and this site becomes a political one.
That is unless you bring up wars or fascism or genocide. Because politics is off limits.
this is a forum for a venture capital firm, everything here is political no matter how the average poster like to pretend it isn't and complaining won't override the financial incentives involved
Different people come here for different things, I guess. I'd bet that most people like the actual "hacker" part: tinkering with fun projects, examples of great creativity, obscure mathematical puzzles, etc.
Greedy sociopaths from SV who don't care about impact on the society around them must be a small minority, I don't believe there is that many of them in the world, otherwise it would have collapsed already.
You're being downvoted because you appear to be not asking genuinely and you're trying to cast doubt instead of seeking to understand.
Because at this point there's really no excuse for not having any idea why people are mad about AI. If you can't guess it's because you're intentionally ignorant of the problem. Because "just asking" is a specific strategy used do doubt and discredit anyone you disagree with.
> You're being downvoted because you appear to be not asking genuinely
I literally said I was asking genuinely.
It's either one of two reasons imo:
1. Their son hates "ai slop" and doesn't think AI is useful.
2. Their son is afraid of not being employable.
I see #1 the most here.
But I suspect it's a front because the posters don't want to admit #2. Hence my question.
I figured it's easier for someone to admit someone else is afraid than admit they are.
So you... weren't... asking genuinely. You already came to a conclusion and just wanted to argue.
Even if it's "secretly" #2 for most people, is that even unreasonable?
It's so bizarre to me that people are acting like a supposedly existential threat on their livelihood is not a reasonable complaint or fear. Historically people, like, behead other people for that.
I don't know, I'm older so I have much less fear about my livelihood but I can't blame young people for being worried about it. And, if they are, for choosing not to use AI. In a way, you could argue that using AI is self-destructive.
The idea that building a hive machine world of ultimate efficiency is a moral imperative greater than creating a good and fair life for the living people of the world is psychotic. We could of course use AI to benefit everyone, but it's so incredibly obvious to everyone that's not going to happen and its hand waved. That's insulting.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth.
I shared my assumption.
I asked the question to get a real perspective from someone who was already sharing. I didn't know their answer before I asked and still don't.
Also I never said #2 was unreasonable. And I don't blame anyone for being fearful either.
But there is an anti-tech sentiment on this tech site, and I find ironic and disappointing.
being anti-ai is not being anti-tech; people have posted language/editor/framework wars here for literal decades, nobody called not liking PHP being anti-tech
Why would no one want to admit #2? I’m afraid.
Also it feels like you responded to “people are downvoting you because it feels like a gotcha” with “yes, it is in fact a gotcha”
I'm just saying I don't see that much here. Most of the negativity is something like "its just a token generator".
I don't care about downvotes. I'm just said that from my perspective anything positive about AI on this site will be met with them. What a twist for a tech site.
> from my perspective anything positive about AI on this site will be met with them. What a twist for a tech site.
Yes, people are hostile towards a crappy technology that doesn't work as advertised, and is looking like it will cause job shortages because companies are trying to lean on the tech even though it doesn't work. That shouldn't be remotely surprising.
If that was your stance, the question was never genuine. When you ask a question expecting a certain outcome, you are obviously not very curious about the answer.
Also, HN is a somewhat large community. I am skeptical about AI for neither reason you mentioned - I think it's a deadend technology and the economics make no sense. A ridiculous waste of resources sucking up all the oxygen in the room.
I don't really care about slop, because that would require me to think that human generated shit is somehow superior. Truth is most things made by humans also suck.
I am also not at all afraid of losing my job to AI. I seriously doubt the competence and experience of anyone afraid of it.
I am afraid of losing my job because of the incoming brutal economic conditions worldwide that I believe are in the horizon. Partly because of AI, but not because I think agents can do my job; because the humongous amount of money burned in the AI pit has to be accounted for.
> When you ask a question expecting a certain outcome, you are obviously not very curious about the answer.
That's an absurd take imo.
So you fall into bucket #1. More generally that AI isn't useful. At least not useful enough to invest time or money in.
Which kindof shows that my question was reasonable. Multiple people on this thread have answered differently.
But still a lot of hostility and anti-tech sentiment.
> So you fall into bucket #1. More generally that AI isn't useful. At least not useful enough to invest time or money in.
Wrong. That's what you wanted to read. As I was saying you are not interested in my opinion, only on the answer you already presume.
I think AI is moderately useful, although clearly not as useful as it is hyped to be.
The amount of money poured into AI makes no sense not because it has no value, but because the investment will never see an adequate return.
> Wrong. That's what you wanted to read.
Check yourself maybe. I'm generalizing what you said to fall into one of my own two buckets, because you said the investment will never see an adequate return..
> I'm generalizing what you said to fall into one of my own two buckets
You want the answers you get to fit your established worldview, you were never interested in engaging with it critically.
And here we are. I explained quite throughly my point of view, and still you reach the same unsuitable conclusion, proving the initial point.
This conversation has reached its conclusion. Have a wonderful day.
I'd love to hear how I misinterpreted your words about AI. Just to remind you:
- "A ridiculous waste of resources sucking up all the oxygen in the room."
- "I am also not at all afraid of losing my job to AI"
- "I seriously doubt the competence and experience of anyone afraid of it."
- "<I don't> think agents can do my job"
- "humongous amount of money burned in the AI pit"
My conclusion from that is that you think AI is bad because it's not useful [to be worth the cost] (bucket #1) and not because you're afraid of losing your job (bucket #2).
I think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw?
But you obviously disagree and found my conclusion so offensive you decided to attack my intentions, as if you know what I'm thinking better than I do.
Apologies. I should not presume malice when other options are available.
All facts below are true in regards on how I think of AI
- AI is useful. I use it daily. In some tasks it speeds me up greatly, in other tasks not so much. I don't question that it is useful, although I do disagree on how much AI maximalists overhype it.
- I think AI is a technology deadend. Due to limitations inherent to how LLMs work, they cannot achieve what the people selling AI claim it can do. Or at least multiple unprecedented technological revolutions would be needed for it to happen.
- AI is hellishly expensive. All companies building it are bleeding an insane amount of money in a reckless manner. At some point, the bill will have to be paid. I am concerned about this in terms of employability - I suspect a major economic downturn is brewing in the horizon, and how companies are burning money in AI will compound on it.
- Perhaps naively, I think that this technology should be built up and incorporated responsibly, instead of this FOMO-fueled "winner takes all" mentality. I recognize that the system we live in has all the wrong incentives however.
I very much disagree my opinions fit neatly in between the categories you defined.
And this brings me back to my original point: You asked your questions presuming the answers. It's not a matter of knowing what you think better than you do, it is a matter of getting the things you declared and deriving your intentions.
>But I suspect it's a front because the posters don't want to admit #2. Hence my question.
And that's why you're getting reflexively downvoted. Because we can already tell by the way you telegraphed the question you aren't worth wasting time on. As it turns out, some of us don't think our youth shouldn't be able to have the same opportunities we did because a bunch of techies got the financial sector to go all in on greedmaxing. Those of us that actually believe in keeping society functional find very little to be recommended by blind "believer" types who just think you can yank the rug out from under your descendants, and force them to have to shape their life around choices you think are cool.
One can be a tech enthusiast and still see that AI is crack cocaine to the type of people who'd set society on fire given they can find someone to help them think through the implementation details, which before AI, was basically the last control the professional caste had over the Capital class. The kids can understand this. Strangely, there is a surprising number of adults who don't seem to ever make the jump to understanding not everyone has entirely benevolent intentions hidden behind their smile.
Fine you're in bucket #2.
Interesting how those who are united against AI have diverse reasons.
> Because we can already tell by the way you telegraphed the question you aren't worth wasting time on.
Nobody asked me before accusing me of bad intentions like you did, but I'll say anyway:
I think using technology to reduce human effort is entirely the point. I believe our economy needs to adapt to advancement, not the other way around. Not that it's going to be easy, but the anti-tech crowd are going to lose. You can't stop progress.
I know, an extreme philosophy to see on a tech forum.
I say this as someone who used AI to assist with real estate and legal issues recently with great success. And as a coder by trade that no longer writes code. And I'm amazed that anyone could say it's not amazing technology.
You can bucket me wherever you want hombre. Whatever makes you feel better. I walked away from tech voluntarily because I refuse to associate with or put my time toward a morally bankrupt industry, even if it is where my talents happen to align. I'm more than happy to be a subsistence humanitarian even if it requires me to sacrifice the gilt and opulence that comes with a tech salary.
I won't abuse humanity. Nor will I enable those who ultimately intend to do so using my work as a proxy. Maybe you should consider doing the same. You might learn something by stepping out of the bubble about all the problems you're creating.
> You might learn something by stepping out of the bubble about all the problems you're creating.
Well I really hope you put your money where your mouth. That means: Never use AI (obviously). Never look up how to plant carrots on YouTube. Don't learn to play an instrument or paint. Anything that exploits public information and steals knowledge without compensation, like AI does, is off limits.
Otherwise you'd be an incredible hypoctrite. Especially since you've already extracted your share of wealth from tech before you saw the light and converted to ludditism.