This time is different
shkspr.mobi
This time is different
1–10 of 400 posts
Re: This time is different
#2Love the Sir Terry reference.
Re: This time is different
#3Re: This time is different
#4"All of the above technologies are still chugging along in some form or other (well, OK, not Quibi). Some are vaguely useful and others are propped up by weirdo cultists. I don't doubt that AI will be a part of the future - but it is obviously just going to be one of many technology which are in use.
> No enemies had ever taken Ankh-Morpork. Well technically they had, quite often; the city welcomed free-spending barbarian invaders, but somehow the puzzled raiders found, after a few days, that they didn't own their horses any more, and within a couple of months they were just another minority group with its own graffiti and food shops.
- Terry Pratchet's Faust Eric"
Re: This time is different
#5I would suggest editing the title to "This Time is Different". I think that captures the essence much better. Love the Sir Terry reference.
Similarly to how titles that start with "how" usually have that word automatically removed.
Re: This time is different
#6Re: This time is different
#7New things are happening and it's exciting. "AI bad" statements without examples feel very head-in-sand.
Re: This time is different
#8I enjoyed Dave Cridland's comment more than the article. The article is dismissive of AI and other technologies in an unsubstantiated way. New things are happening and it's exciting. "AI bad" statements without examples feel very head-in-sand.
Re: This time is different
#9I enjoyed Dave Cridland's comment more than the article. The article is dismissive of AI and other technologies in an unsubstantiated way. New things are happening and it's exciting. "AI bad" statements without examples feel very head-in-sand.
I like technology. I made a decent living from it. But if I had chased every hyped fad that was promised as the next big thing, I doubt I'd be as happy as I am now.
Re: This time is different
#10I enjoyed Dave Cridland's comment more than the article. The article is dismissive of AI and other technologies in an unsubstantiated way. New things are happening and it's exciting. "AI bad" statements without examples feel very head-in-sand.
This only doesn't feel like substantiation if you reject the notion that these cases are analogous.
"You shouldn't eat that."
"Why not?"
"Everyone else who's eaten it has either died or gotten really sick."
"But I'm different! Why should I listen to your unsubstantiated claims?"
"(lists names of prior victims)"
"That doesn't mean anything. I'm different. You're just making vague and dismissive unsubstantiated claims."
The claim isn't "AI bad" the claim is more along the lines of "there's a lot of money changing hands and this has all the earmarks of a classic hype cycle; while attention/diffusion models may amount to something the claims of their societal impacts are almost certainly being exaggerated by people with a financial stake in keeping the bubble inflated as long as possible, to pull in as many suckers as possible."
If you want another example (which you won't find analogous if you've already drunk the koolaid):
https://theblundervault.substack.com/p/the-segway-delusion-w...