People with less AI literacy often see the technology as ‘magical’ and awe-inspiring.

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.

  • kitnaht@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1425·
    14 hours ago

    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.

    • orclev@lemmy.worldEnglish
      272·
      13 hours ago

      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.

      • Petter1@lemm.eeEnglish
        5·
        8 hours ago

        Or AGI, meaning LLM that produces x amount of profit, according to openAI and Microsoft 🤣

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
        85·
        13 hours ago

        What you’re saying expressly isn’t true. Academically, deep learning is considered a subset of machine learning is considered a subset of artificial intelligence.

        • Deep learning is machine learning that makes use of deep neural networks.
        • Machine learning is artificial intelligence which can perform tasks without explicit instructions by learning from a dataset and generalizing to other data.
        • Artificial intelligence is simply trying to make a computer display some sort of intelligence that’s seen as human-like. For example, a perceptron is artificial intelligence because how could a computer possibly see like a human? Chess bots are artificial intelligence because it was thought that chess represented some sort of higher intelligence unique to humans. NPC actions in video games can be artificial intelligence because you’re simulating what another human might do.

        Would you like the textbooks from 10 years ago on this exact subject that I’m referencing? The term AI hasn’t been co-opted; you might’ve simply been thinking of general artificial intelligence, because “pretty much any form of machine learning” has been called AI since the dawn of machine learning – because it is.

        • Lydia_K@lemmy.worldEnglish
          161·
          12 hours ago

          While your distinctions are correct in the academic way of referring to things, you are not considering the marketing way of referring to things. Behold, the AI powered rice cooker, powered by a magnet and heat, like every other rice cooker ever (because it works really well)

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_HOrMmWoMA

          Marketing has decided that anything that does anything is “AI” now. Which is why people are insanely disenchanted with it.

          • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
            22·
            11 hours ago

            That toaster is what AI is. If it’s machine learning, it’s AI. If I make a toilet that uses a shitty-ass single-layer perceptron to decide when to flush, that’s an AI-powered toilet even if it’s a worthless piece of crap. You can be disenchanted with it as a gimmick all you want (I am too), but it falls under AI the same way it has since the 1950s. The marketing way of referring to things you just showed me entirely comports with the academic one provided what the label says is true.

            • taladar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              5·
              11 hours ago

              You are technically correct and yet you are missing the original point that people expect the super-intelligent AGI of science fiction when they hear the term, no matter how much all those lesser forms are AI too by the definition of the scientific field.

      • kitnaht@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        4 hours ago

        If all these LLMs weren’t trained on bitch-speak; yeah. I know there are LLMs out there that aren’t kneecapped in this way, but they’re often of much lower quality.