521–530 of 656 posts
"Economy should improve allocation of resources universally, instead of allowing a handful to hold what many are lacking."
And so on...
Society has advanced in technology but didn't progress the same way in philosophy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So... Our jobs are safe then? I mean, assuming we don't also atrophy to the same extent as the 'many'?
It's the "our jobs are lost" attitude that is part of problem. Is not about that. Is more quality thinking, is daring, not fearing or hoping
"Social media should bring people together instead of being used to set them apart." "Economy should improve allocation of resources universally, instead of allowing a handful to hold what many are lacking." And so on... Society has advanced in technology but didn't progress the same way in philosophy.
> and spend more time on the parts of the job that actually matter i.e. framing problems, making tradeoffs, spotting risks, creating clarity, and producing original insight. What makes you think AI won't do those parts of the job? Either AI stops improving, or it will replace thinking.
If it does it on it's own, it might be a good idea, but it won't be your good idea. This is not an issue of ownership or attribution, but one of content. Your ideas come from your experiences. An AI may eventually be able to make any tool fit for the task you had in mind. It can't on it's own, give you the tool that you want because you just thought of it.
AI may one day spray the world with new ideas, That won't stop humans from having ideas themselves. Like chess programs, being better than any human can make you choose to give up chess, or it might help you become a better chess player. You won't become better than the chess program, but you also probably won't become better than the best human chess players. Nobody should stop doing something because someone or something can do it better.
> and spend more time on the parts of the job that actually matter i.e. framing problems, making tradeoffs, spotting risks, creating clarity, and producing original insight. What makes you think AI won't do those parts of the job? Either AI stops improving, or it will replace thinking.
It can already do some part of that. Eventually it will be able to all of it. If it does it on it's own, it might be a good idea, but it won't be your good idea. This is not an issue of ownership or attribution, but one of content. Your ideas come from your experiences. An AI may eventually be able to make any tool fit for the task you had in mind. It can't on it's own, give you the tool that you want because you jus…
This is what happens when the people building your society's advanced technology have no theory of mind. Too much science fiction, not enough human interaction. The Social Network is looking more and more prophetic. When your only ambition is success for its own sake, driven by insecurities you can never name, you're going to make things that don't actually serve other people, or only do as an unfortunate side effect…
Hmm? There are a number of top AI people who make this exact point, though, and are trying to drive things toward elevating thinking. There's more that can be done, but quite a bit is a user mindset issue that's just going to have to shake out over time.
The first is that these people have often been indistinguishable from the ambitious and power hungry people I was decrying. Sam Altman was able to blend in for a long time by copying the rhetoric of AI safety types. When there is this much money to be made and power to be amassed, it's not hard to pretend to care.
The second is that I have often been disappointed by what the AI safety folks are concerned about. There has been a huge amount of talk about existential risk and not nearly as much about, say, the impact on children if education is outsourced to AI. The obsession with science fiction led to some very out there scenarios that may or may not still happen, but have nothing to do with the very real impacts of AI on people's lives right now. I believe that even the well intentioned have been too detached from humanity as a whole.
> and spend more time on the parts of the job that actually matter i.e. framing problems, making tradeoffs, spotting risks, creating clarity, and producing original insight. What makes you think AI won't do those parts of the job? Either AI stops improving, or it will replace thinking.
We don't even know what 'thinking' is so the idea that it'll create it just by scaling does not follow. What is much more likely is that we're on the wrong path. That's been the case for more than half a century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know. Growing up and seeing life and people around me I firmly believe that if you have enough brain power and intuition for $TOPIC you can speed-run it. At the same time, with time and experience and doing/re-doing it, you will learn or master $TOPIC [1] even with less brain power. [1] Depending on the topic and the level of knowledge of it.
1. Intuition mostly “muscle-memory” earned from previous experience. 2. Don’t assume you’re the next Mozart. Someone is, statistically it’s not you.