501–510 of 512 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here. If anything, I think most here outsource too little thinking to AI. What am I supposed to be afraid of? Losing skills I no longer need to get the job done?
Why should anyone ever hire you? We'll just hire the LLM you use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I once read Ben Franklin's autobiography. I have yet to experience any great blossoming of our relationship. I've also read it, and got to know the man that much better. It especially added a great deal of texture to the experience of visiting his home site, his church, and his grave. I'd argue that humans rarely have unique perspectives, being highly influenced by their environment and experience. And have we not…
When you read a book, you hypothesize a writer and have some kind of inner relationship with the hypothetical writer. But it's not a real relationship. It's in the words , not outside them.
One could certainly have a pen pal relationship where the only communication was via text. The relationship begins with the very first message.
Or a relationship with an autobiographer who spills their soul onto the page.
But if I look through the text of an AI spilling its soul, there's nothing on the other side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To think that slavery, ancient or modern, is caused by relative wealth differentials reveals an abysmal ignorance of both history and human nature. I claimed no such thing, you read way too much into your missing the point. > if the Vikings (or whoever) caught you alone, or outnumbered and overpowered your hired guards Wait, I thought it was just because "some people do evil things", nothing to do with relative pow…
I'm deliberately giving an illustration that shows that relative power throughout most of history had to do with physical strength and weapons, rather than money. And if you didn't mean that slavery is caused by relative wealth differentials, then saying "... the people who treat them like slaves have even more. It's all about the relative difference between people who are alive today ..." was a very poor way of maki…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the power draw of the GPUs and RAM needed to run those local LLMs, I don't see them being comfortable to hold in one's pocket anytime soon. :-) Not until some not-yet-imagined breakthrough in heat dissipation is made. But a thin client that talks to the local LLM on your private network, that's already possible today. So yes, within the next 5-10 years I fully expect I'll actually want to use an AI assistant on…
Power consumption per unit of work keeps going down, too. Our pocket supercomputers are astoundingly efficient compared to what it used to take to get the same work done at relatable points in the past. We'll get there. Before we get there, we'll have network connectivity to our desktop AI boxes at home. That's pretty good, too. And if this clown-bot[1] boom is a bubble (as I believe it is), then it's just a matter o…
... And I've just been agreeing with you on all points with this comment, haven't I? Time to wrap up the discussion, then: once total agreement is reached then there's not much point in continuing the discussion unless someone has something new to say, and I don't have anything new to say on this topic. See you around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm deliberately giving an illustration that shows that relative power throughout most of history had to do with physical strength and weapons, rather than money. And if you didn't mean that slavery is caused by relative wealth differentials, then saying "... the people who treat them like slaves have even more. It's all about the relative difference between people who are alive today ..." was a very poor way of maki…
That in this context, it's about the wealth that leads to "having economic power over the people around you". That is zero sum, and the general rise in absolute living standards is as relevant to that as a comment about apples is in a discussion about Apple.
I don't know if this is a good framing. "Too much" is subjective, and every heavy AI user will assert that they're just unlocking their potential, that calculators didn't make us dumber, etc. But to latch onto the calculator argument: if you outsource adding numbers to a calculator, you're still you. On the flip side, if you use an LLM do most of your thinking, what's left? We have people here who use LLMs to raise t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That in this context, it's about the wealth that leads to "having economic power over the people around you". That is zero sum, and the general rise in absolute living standards is as relevant to that as a comment about apples is in a discussion about Apple.
Ah. When that one commenter said "Wealth is having economic power over the people around you", I ignored him, because that's a ridiculous definition, not to be taken seriously. Any argument that arises out of that definition is inherently flawed, since one of its premises is false; it would be like saying "Since the moon is made of green cheese, therefore X". The definition of wealth that nearly everyone agrees with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As Led Zeppelin once said, "you know sometimes words have two meanings". That definition of wealth is all well and good for books about how markets are magical fix-everything pixie dust. But it's not the definition of wealth that applies when used to describe a person. A wealthy person is not someone with a lot of things. That's a hoarder. A wealthy person is someone who can use their economic power to shape the worl…
>A wealthy person is not someone with a lot of things. No one made that claim. By nearly any sane metric the world is wealthier. You can verify this on sites like Our World in Data. We are healthier, have more leisure time, are less likely to die in natural disasters, etc. It's willful ignorance to define wealth in a way that wouldn't show humanity as having gotten more wealthy. You're doing harm by overlooking massi…
Having a very dangerous AI standoff at work, where people are debating wether or not to use a particular connection pooling / threading strategy to fix a production issue, and everyone is unqualified to answer and is instead arguing what their agent said. They are just straight up admitting they don't know anything, and advocate fiercely for their agent's recommendation. No one cares, no one tries to stop this behavi…
I am curious thought. If nobody is qualified to answer, how would your team have approached the problem without any AI?