PC Gaming

I’d pay extra for no AI in any of my shit.

The dedicated TPM chip is already being used for side-channel attacks. A new processor running arbitrary code would be a black hat's wet dream.

I would pay for AI-enhanced hardware...but I haven't yet seen anything that AI is enhancing, just an emerging product being tacked on to everything they can for an added premium.

I'm generally opposed to anything that involves buying new hardware. This isn't the 1980s. Computers are powerful as fuck. Stop making software that barely runs on them. If they can't make ai more efficient then fuck it. If they can't make game graphics good without a minimum of a $1000 gpu that produces as much heat as a space heater, maybe we need to go back to 2000s era 3d. There is absolutely no point in making graphics more photorealistic than maybe Skyrim. The route they're going is not sustainable.

Only 7% say they would pay more, which to my mind is the percentage of respondents who have no idea what "AI" in its current bullshit context even is

I am generally unwilling to pay extra for features I don't need and didn't ask for.

We're not gonna make it, are we? People, I mean.

I was recently looking for a new laptop and I actively avoided laptops with AI features.

Let me put it in lamens terms..... FUCK AI.... Thanks, have a great day

The biggest surprise here is that as many as 16% are willing to pay more...

What does AI enhanced hardware mean? Because I bought an Nvidia RTX card pretty much just for the AI enhanced DLSS, and I’d do it again.

I don't think the poll question was well made... "would you like part away from your money for..." vaguely shakes hand in air "...ai?"

People is already paying for "ai" even before chatGPT came out to popularize things: DLSS

Okay, but here me out. What if the OS got way worse, and then I told you that paying me for the AI feature would restore it to a near-baseline level of original performance? What then, eh?

Who in the heck are the 16%

I'm willing to pay extra for software that isn't

I would pay extra to be able to run open LLM's locally on Linux. I wouldn't pay for Microsoft's Copilot stuff that's shoehorned into every interface imaginable while also causing privacy and security issues. The context matters.

Pay more for a shitty chargpt clone in your operating system that can get exploited to hack your device. I see no flaw in this at all.

My old ass GTX 1060 runs some of the open source language models. I imagine the more recent cards would handle them easily.

What’s the “AI” hardware supposed to do that any gamer with recent hardware can’t?

And when traditional AI programs can be run on much lower end hardware with the same speed and quality, those chips will have no use. (Spoiler alert, it's happening right now.)

Corporations, for some reason, can't fathom why people wouldn't want to pay hundreds of dollars more just for a chip that can run AI models they won't need most of the time.

If I want to use an AI model, I will, but if you keep developing shitty features that nobody wants using it, just because "AI = new & innovative," then I have no incentive to use it. LLMs are useful to me sometimes, but an LLM that tries to summarize the activity on my computer isn't that useful to me, so I'm not going to pay extra for a chip that I won't even use for that purpose.

Fuck, they won't upgrade to TPM for windows 11

Show the actual use case in a convincing way and people will line up around the block. Generating some funny pictures or making generic suggestions about your calendar won't cut it.

I can't tell how good any of this stuff is because none of the language they're using to describe performance makes sense in comparison with running AI models on a GPU. How big a model can this stuff run, how does it compare to the graphics cards people use for AI now?