251–260 of 575 posts
This is propagating the Dunning Kruger effect.
Anyone with a sub 100 IQ should be using AI nearly blindly for questions and life decisions. However, these exact people don't realize AI is smarter than them.
I think we are going to witness a division on a monumental level in our lifetime. People willing to use AI, and people not willing. (However, people not willing will be able to get to speed in literal seconds).
Recently there was a flood of articles about "students are using AI to cheat". Now there's a flood of articles about "students are anti AI". My first impression is that floods of articles do not accurately reflect the real world, but just show some facet of it. But if they are both correct and both are to be taken as real, should we expect that students will agree with academia and not use AI in their education? Migh…
Sure, both are true, although I think you'll find that they differentiate between "cheating" on their math homework by using AI, and kids who are cheating on exams by sneaking in a smartphone and giving a photo of the problem to ChatGPT.
As far as homework goes, AI is just the new Google, useful perhaps, but hardly outweighing all the anxiety of their future being taken away by AI, or all the societal enshittification by AI that they see all around them.
Unsurprising he'd be cheered for saying what they wanted to hear. But perhaps whether or not his stance is correct, the students needed to hear this. They (we) have to believe human brains still have value and find a way out; for otherwise there'd be no point to try anymore.
> They (we) have to believe human brains still have value and find a way out; for otherwise there'd be no point to try anymore. Our value isn't predicated on our utility. The simple fact that we are sentient beings, capable of joy and suffering, gives us value. This is why we continue to support and care for the elderly and the disabled - we value them regardless of any practical utility we may derive from them. If y…
It is very easy to get lost in between them, especially when listening to a good speaker who can flitter between those meanings at will.
What is worse is that those values interact. We indeed we continue to support and care for the elderly and the disabled, but only up to a point, and there is a reasonable discussion how exactly should countries divide their limited resources between vulnerable groups, including families with young kids. In that context, the future economic and societal value of a 5 y.o. vs. a 85 y.o. inevitably creeps up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want advice from the one questioning whether we should, not just whether we can.
OK, and who's stopping you? Take your advice from whoever you want. History tends to shows the pragmatists wiping out the luddites out of the gene pool/business market, but you are free to make your choice the way you see fit, nobody is forcing you to follow anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A view that is not shared always by LLM cheerleaders. Part of Sam Altman's defence of the environmental impact of AI is that it is less than that of a human life. "He said it was unreasonable to focus on "how much energy it takes to train an AI model, relative to how much it costs a human to do one inference query." "It takes like 20 years of life and all of the food you eat during that time before you get smart," he…
It took a 100 billion people and their knowledge,experience to generate the data to train an AI. So that cost also comes under the environmental costs to build his version of AI. unless he plans to freeze the training data at this point and use that for another billion years, the cost of building AI will always be more than the cost of humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The economy
The economy looked really good before the dotcom crash too. The crash didn’t make the internet go away, but it damped the hype and blind, unchecked optimism that was leading to some rather short-sighted decisions. Right now so many companies are trying to use AI just to use AI, rather than using it when and where it actually makes sense. This is the big thing that drives me, and I think many others, a bit crazy. I do…
AI will be the same in the future. Not sure what to say about the ups and downs of stock price, or hype cycles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's so much documented evidence of people attacking jewish people who they call zionists without cause that I find this line of reasoning stupid. In recent memory there was Ethan Klein, who is Jewish and has visited Israel but is openly critical of Israeli actions and supports Palestine; yet people harassed him and his wife constantly about him being Jewish. I'd totally buy your argument, criticising Hamas isn't…
> There's so much documented evidence of people attacking jewish people who they call zionists without cause that I find this line of reasoning stupid. Attacking people for any reason is unacceptable. Including for being Jewish of course. Assuming that they were truly attacked and not just disagreed with or something. > In recent memory there was Ethan Klein, who is Jewish Being Jewish or not (or any ethnicity) is ir…
Defend any entity that harms children without accountability (Israeli government, Hamas) -- you've picked a side.
That's not conviction. That's tribalism.
And sure, let's litigate world affairs from a link aggregator. These aren't factions in a strategy game; they're people with guns doing horrid things to people who can't fight back, hiding behind whoever will defend them.
The killed, starved and sexually abused are actual humans. We're somehow expected to say one side is more justified in this? It's not Red vs Blue man. Gtfo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The future is already here—it’s just not very evenly distributed." AI has made my life so much easier. If I need to change non-standard lightbulbs (e.g., G9, MR11, A19), I'm taking a picture and asking my AI what kind are they. If I need to create the first pass of test scripts, I ask my AI. It's reduced technical debt and let me focus on the things I care about.
> It's reduced technical debt I think that's a misunderstanding of the phrase. AI may have reduced your immediate technical burden. However AI, if not carefully used, increases technical debt because it builds up a vast heap of code and business logic that nobody understands. The agent that created it forgets about it once it's out of its context window, the programmer that scripted it just knows it passed some tests…
There used to be pushback to have 100% test coverage. If you don't have that, then you can't merge. AI can write the tests but a programmer must own them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The economy
And famously, the economy never changes course. Something, something, stocks always go up.
Or that a competitive startup won't lean on AI to get ahead?
Doesn't matter how much stock prices move up and down...AI is here to stay and no amount of booing changes our desires to compete.
The world doesn't hold hands with anyone, there is no global consensus, no policy.
I recall all the bemoaning when IT jobs started going overseas... businesses always go with the cheapest labor.
The world is dog eat dog, and those that prepare for the future are better equipped to deal.