For reference, the “Hopeless Dipshit Percentage” in any population is about 25-33%.
About a quarter to a third of the population believes in witches, ghosts and ESP; that the earth revolves around the sun; that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11; that Obama was born in Kenya; and that evolution and climate change are hoaxes. A third of the US population can’t name a single right guaranteed by the constitution or even one branch of government. And a quarter of the population self-professes that they wouldn’t stop supporting Trump no matter what he did.
In that context, only 3% willing to pay any money for AI is an utter failure. The LLM bubble needs to burst yesterday, and the whole Internet needs to roll back to 2022.
@salacious_coaster @dgerard Wait till you learn the percentage of ostensibly fully functional adults that have an Invisible Friend in the Sky
Yeah but that particular lunacy is grandfathered in to society, so I avoid it in my rants
I don’t know how true this still holds but two years after 9/11 70% of the US thought Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. My guess is that number continues to be higher than 30%.
I mean, “ideally” (to AI companies) those 3% would be the people who use it the most, so businesses and employees who get real value out of the stuff. Depending on who are considered AI users, it’s not awful as a B2B thing. Selling to the general public is definitely a no-go though.
so businesses and employees who get real value out of the stuff.
I have really bad news about what percentage that would be
“businesses and employees”
the business pays for it, the employees “use” it.
the business measures the value by how many employees they can remove.
if the business is measuring “productivity”, how are they doing that? Is it jira tickets? Is it timesheets? are they measuring quality? Is it starting to seem like you’re trying to pick up water with your fingers?
if you pretend that ai ceos are actually doing marketing the trajectory is right there staring you in the face
I’m not sure what the point you’re trying to make is.
we hope you find a more suitable Lemmy community to post to.
3% of the population being scammers sounds about right.
I would far prefer the rollback to be 2004 or earlier…
Completely unrelated fact, but isn’t the prevalence of cocaine use among U. S. adults considered to be more than 1% as well?
(Referring to this, of course - especially the last part: https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/06/05/generative-ai-runs-on-gambling-addiction-just-one-more-prompt-bro/)
cocaine users are convinced that everyone not using cocaine will be left behind, as use of cocaine leads to increase in productivity and innovation
* adderall
The management regrets to inform the TechTakes/awful.systems community that this post has apparently escaped containment. In order to continue providing the environment that this community deserves, we will be distributing free tickets to the egress in response to comments that exhaust our patience.
Mods when a post escapes containment: No! No!!
Sickos like me when a posts escapes containment and they get to see the worst takes humanity has to offer: Yes… Ha ha ha… YES!
Seems a lot to be honest.
let me guess 3% are the corporate heads, c-suites, mba, and the people either implementing it or deploying it.
They are going to make it sub service to kill off the poor people from living with society.
While still scouring the free web parts for training data…
That is known & not a problem for the megacorps.
They are building an environment where using AI will be a must (like smartphones that spy on you have become today).
At that point it becomes overpriced & will under-deliver (the monopolistic enshitification of an already shitty offer).
deleted by creator
Consider you asking that question 20 years ago about why do we need smartphones for a normal life (unencumbered by having to go through several loops for the simplest things).
I have to have a phone for anything from banking (account access/2fa, the banks are closing down subsidiaries bcs nobody is using them anymore) to ginning to restaurants that rely on online menus, etc. Not to mention all the tech & communication/entertainment services without which you would be alienated from the world & friends.
(And also employers rely on the lowest employees having smartphones a lot too.)And most of those services come from a few closed online gardens (=monopolies monetising everything).
Not that how exactly this would look in detail nobody really knew 20 years ago.
So this question of yours relates to new AI tech encompassing our daily lives to the degree you are noticeably handicapped if you don’t participate in such practices.
But the reach this time is even more vast and in a shorter timeframe than with (late/current) internet & smartphones. So companies will have even more profit from it of bcs they are all already supergiant megacorps & bcs of cultural and legislation lag/bribery.
“AI is just like smartphones” yes thank you for this statement that we definitely haven’t heard dozens of times before
Idk, umbrella asked me that, I thought it was oblivious too.
“You’re going to lick boot in 20 years anyway, why not get used to the taste now?”
Why not fight boot-licking now?
That’s why I’m super pro-foss & anti-megacorp.
deleted by creator
It’s hard to tell bcs there are many options (again, like for interment & smartphones this wasn’t the only form of dependency - just what worked the best for the giants to solidify their positions, some didn’t name it, and foss lagged in market share).
Also disruptions and monopolies arent about offering something new/more/better, their aim is to get the market share to control the demand too (eg Uber was never to be profitable at first as a market competitor, they dumped capital & underplayed workforce until the taxi companies went out of business then started charging more & paying less bcs monopoly that they essentially bought - that was the plan, no investor dumps money in a company that isn’t & won’t be making money for a decade, the calculation was future profits).
Random about how AI can become mandatory: maybe a lot or communication platforms could requires AI to function (like Google services require ads). So no AI sub, no access to your chat platform of choice (unless ofc foss, like Signal, Matrix, etc).
A stupid example (at least at the moment) but megacorp apps & OSs (Android/Windows) could for example stop providing simple search (Ctrl+F) options overall unless you have AI bcs “their search is AI powered and they refuse to provide you a less then the best experience” … so now you have to manually search for a simple key word or pay AI monthly sub (+sell your data & thoughts).
This works bcs most people won’t look for alternatives or go open source.Or maybe services from other companies (AI) will demand to speak to your AI for a simple sign up (no longer email & password and/or mfa).
Maybe there will be AI ring fenced gardens where you will need different subscriptions for services (companies) that only work with one but not the other.
Or again with the smartphones - the big manufactures (+Google) will tie functions with AI subscriptions (eg camera app, settings, desktop customisation, etc.).
We haven’t yet seen any mass monetisation, how the payment models would work, how many tiers, how high the prices, etc - but how high the prices can be is determined by how much of necessity it is. And since market entry barriers are high, and megacorps already have their gardens, they will absolutely work on how to shape the environment to make (their) AI a basic necessity.
(It’s what shareholders demand, it’s what all this money now is for - the investments are so high & the race so fierce that it doesn’t make sense unless they can squeeze their users later.)
epic
Enshittify faster pls
I would pay for AI for personal use. But TBH the free models are more than enough for my needs already, so there’s no reason to pay for something more advanced. Also, often these “more advanced” models are slower. I’d take speed over some wall of text that takes a while.
We’re in the SliceLine era of AI. Enjoy it while it lasts.
no fucking thanks
But what percent of employers are willing to pay? That’s where they’re betting it
