81–90 of 345 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want anything your statistics generate
Statistically, yeah, you do. Is it that there's numbers and forethought involved that turns you off, or the meta of it all?
I'm not a fan of this hyper aggressive line-in-the-sand argumentation about AI that pushes it all precariously close to culture war shenanigans. If you don't like a new technology that is perfectly cool and your right to an opinion. Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. That is NOT at all clear, settled, or even correct m…
> I don't want music recommendations from something that can't appreciate or understand music. Human recommendations will always be better. I find Spotify's "discover weekly" list to be generally pretty good. Sure, there are some songs I dont like, but there are often 3-4 great songs each week that get added to my regularly playlist. Its all good an well to say that human recommendations are better, but I'm not payin…
By that definition, so is all human output. Musicians spend years studying and practicing other people's music before writing their own, painters spend years trying to replicate techniques before mastering their own, programmers spend years reading other people's bugs before authoring their own. All expression of skill is ultimately derivative. Sometimes slightly, sometimes verbatim, sometimes outright plagiarism.
This is why we reserve "derivative" for cases where the output has a similarities and obvious connection, and why we have a hard time dealing with it in practice - it's impossible to disallow a human from using past experiences in future works.
We taught a pile of melted sand to think using principles of learning (very roughly) similar to ours, and now we get upset that it worked and they apply what they learnt because now only we are allowed to do that.
Usually these anti AI outbursts come from designers. This is the first one I've seen coming from a developer. Or at least the first with such salt, bitterness and anger.
Honesty, Javascript front-end developers are probably more at risk of “being replaced” by AI than designers. This is probably where this sentiment is coming from.
I don’t want to do corporate training modules, but I don’t care if they buy stock art or generate it using gpt. I don’t want to talk to a customer service bot at all, but I’d rather talk to one that is well built and capable. I don’t want to write cover letters. Now I don’t.
There’s plenty of ways for tools to be used inappropriately, and if you simply stop believing that “AI” exists and try to understand it as another tool, you can avoid falling into the pattern of angst that keeps going around.
You don't want AI music recommendations? Great, don't use it. Go speak to people. Many find discovery algorithms useful.
Want some custom art? Pay an artist. You can do this once a week at most before you're broke?
It's not a replacement for search? Google search was gamed by spammy websites and shitty people for years before AI.
It's idealistic. It's an easy opinion to have. You're not solving any problems.
AI has it's place and it's not meaningful art, a replacement for genuine human interaction or going to solve all of our problems. But it turns out at a REALLY GREAT autocomplete is a powerful tool. That's good enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't seen what I've seen. :) There are a lot of groups running towards this goal and it's all going to land at once.
In my experience, "the first 80% is easy; the second 80% is hard." It's very easy to get caught up in the hype and think we're closer than we are because we can see the finish line. All this new generative work does a great job of giving compelling demos, but there's way more to do before it becomes compelling media. Having been through a few of these things in the last 20 years, I'm going to trust my priors before b…