141–150 of 496 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re an inspiration. I’m going to open an accounting firm and refuse to use calculators.
How often are calculators confidently wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How often are people?
I think the difference, right now at least, is that people will go, "well, I'm not sure about this so I think we should look it up, but this is what I think" - the AI doesn't do that. It lies in the same exact way it tells truths. How are you supposed to make decisions based off of that information?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the progression of the technology, you may find there are not so many "in-between" steps as you expect in your current list. It will quickly go from the current stage "employee being more productive" to "steam, I want to play a game where ". No need to generate art assets or have anything resembling a game engine, just pure interactive "imagination".
I disagree I think it will take more steps. Likely there will be phases where we learn to let the machine 'drive' so to speak with our business. I think there will be a lot of independant studios using AI with very low funding showing it's possible. However I think the big block studios are going to be very careful to rock the boat. There will be business decisions in between these steps. If anything I think AI will…
Then, with infinite variations, there will be infinite duds. People will value the ones that aren't duds so there will be a market for curators. And there will be a niche where people will want to see the exact same output together and talk about it.
Can you imagine facebook ? "Facebook, please give me a friend that "
> "The past decades have shown that the benefits of technology are unevenly distributed, with some rich becoming super-rich with a good portion of the people lagging behind. However, it is also fair to say that the average well being in the world has steadily increased."
The average is far less important than the median, when it comes to social stability. You could argue that the establishment of plantation slavery in the American South improved the average wealth and leisure time relative to the pre-slavery economy, but the median would be highly skewed by a few people hoarding all the wealth and enjoying all the leisure time.
In the case of AI, ensuring that the results of individual productivity gains are not hoarded by the uber-wealthy is important. If AI helps an employee finish what used to be a 12-hour job in just 6 hours, why not cut the employee's working hours in half while retaining the same salary, instead of giving the executive suite another million-dollar compensation boost?
A 30-hr work week, enabled by AI assistance, would mean people had more time for community engagement, family interaction, personal development and so on, leading to healthier societies.
I completely disagree. I'm building a business, and this business will be based on excellent software and excellent support for that software. I will refuse to use AI. But instead of AI users taking my job, I'm sure that refusing to use AI will become my differentiator as every AI user becomes more and more like each other. You may think that good AI users will not become so bland, but they will. Human laziness will…
> The economic value of mediocre and derivative work is plummeting. But the value of truly excellent and original work will become even more unique, more highly prized. > A chasm between the third best and fourth best script writer, graphic designer, lawyer, etc. is just starting to open. ChatGPT might write the next Marvel movie but will never write the next Everything Everywhere All at Once. Not my words. By Eric P…
I suspect AI getting good enough to create a Marvel movie is basically indistinguishable from it being able to create a good movie. The problem is LLM’s are basically just creating gibberish which mimics meaningful text well enough you don’t notice it’s meaningless as long as it’s a short enough sample.
Modern AI techniques are approaching human level capacity by combining a lifetime worth of information in their training sets with nearly human levels of computation. It’s not at the level of professionals, but being roughly as good as a teenager means crossing that threshold could happen well before people are ready for it.
Unless we expect a grassroots AI luddite movement, this is hair splitting.
With the cost of living in the US being completely out of control, and the potential for AI to gut wages in a number of high paid areas, why are we not expecting a new luddite movement? Or is this another case of not understanding why the luddites broke the machines in the first place?
I used to pay translators for that, but GPT-4 translation is so good. I'd argue domain specific even better than a translator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My thought was it read exactly like "Guns don't kill people, people who squeeze the trigger kill people." Technically right in a specific context but completely misses the point.
What point does it miss?
People willing to murder always existed; however, guns are an enabling factor.
As I understanding, the parent's argument is that focusing on the person willing to do the action is not useful because they were always there. What has changed is the enabling factor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot in good conscience be wishing to do menial tasks for a living, that AI can do for you and instead of you. That's how doing manual search and replace instead of search/replace in editor or computing stuff in spreadsheet by hand instead of using formulas. If you think AI's output is suboptimal, right. Maybe find a way to use/train AI better to produce good enough output. But simply wishing to out-robot a rob…
I think the parent's point is the exact opposite of what you have argued against. The author is saying they are afraid 'robots' will come for the fun stuff, rather than only being a tool for the menial labour. Think of the recent generative AI artwork...rather than drawing, and creating, (some/most?) artists fear just being prompt-carvers. The fun of the art has been replaced with menial labour of crafting prompts.
Fearful that a prompt carver can replace 10 artists is the more realistic fear here. That is the essential trajectory being plotted out by this technology and the trajectory described by the article.