Nobody asked for it??? Nobody wants it??? You're not paying attention. I want it. I think it's our only chance at quickly solving huge complex problems like aging, cancer, Alzheimer's.
Aging isn’t a problem. It’s normal.
It can be both
Bored of It
111–120 of 507 posts
Re: Bored of It
#112What's "it"? AI in general?
Re: Bored of It
#113Nobody asked for it??? Nobody wants it??? You're not paying attention. I want it. I think it's our only chance at quickly solving huge complex problems like aging, cancer, Alzheimer's.
Aging isn’t a problem. It’s normal.
Animals eat their disabled children. Humans should also do it then, since it's normal or natural.
Around 100k people die from age-related disease every day. I'd be careful to dismiss that as not a problem.
Re: Bored of It
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds a lot like you want to cure life. We're mortal meat bags, go enjoy life instead of worrying about "solving" the inevitable.
Cure death, not life. And I do enjoy life, that's exactly why I want it to be much much longer.
Cool, I like sci fi too. Now explain me how many dots I have to create out of thin air to connect LLMs to immortality ?
Re: Bored of It
#115> The best minds of my generation I’m tired of that line. I remember first seeing it on “the best minds of our generation being employed to sell you ads”. Making a computer go brrr doesn’t qualify anyone for a “best mind”. I’d hope a “best mind” would be, above all, empathetic. Concerned about the well being of their fellow humans. Philosophical about the state of the world. Patient. Curious. Wise and not just smart.…
I came here to say exactly this. I can't tell if it's because I'm not a traditional "tech" person, but 90% of the best minds I've seen are nowhere near tech in general.
Having a brilliant mind, going to an "elite" school (because someone told you it's elite), joining a FAANG company, building software that you deep down know is killing society, but doing it because the "problems are fun and money is great" is antithetical to what a "best mind of a generation" would truly be.
It's wasted talent with few redeeming qualities for society and a lack of innovation/creativity around using your talents to improve the world.
A "best mind of the generation" would find a way to be successful without riding such a lazy conveyor belt of life.
Re: Bored of It
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having been in IT for close to 15 years now, a lot of good minds work in IT a lot of good minds don't. But I've encountered a lot of stupid (for lack of a better word) people in IT who were convinced they are good at _everything_ just because they grokked algorithms and data structures. Not sure it's a phenomenon unique to IT, but what DOGE is doing is exactly what I mean.
Can confirm, this isn't just an IT thing. Physicians are a prime example—people tend to put doctors on a pedestal, and some doctors start believing they know everything about everything, even when it's clearly outside their wheelhouse. Being smart in one area doesn’t automatically make you an expert in another, but it’s easy for everyone involved to forget that.
I'm a retired neurosurgical anesthesiologist; you are correct about this illusion that physicians often labor under. But it's worth noting that when medical topics are posted here, the responses from non-physicians are sometimes so nonsensical that I for one laugh out loud reading them. In fact, I look forward to these discussions for this very reason.
Re: Bored of It
#117Nobody asked for it??? Nobody wants it??? You're not paying attention. I want it. I think it's our only chance at quickly solving huge complex problems like aging, cancer, Alzheimer's.
That's true, and so far is being used for (check notes) cloning the peculiar style of an anime studio. Or fake receipts.
That's a ridiculous take. Read some actual AI news, not just titles of pop-sci articles.
Re: Bored of It
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you go from "successful" to "useful"? There seems to be no logical connection from "shitty people are successful" to "empathy is not useful to society."
Because empathy isn't useful to society. One only lives once so you better make sure you'll be successful. Having empathy will actively hurt your own life
> useful to society
On the contrary, the "respect" towards others is a condition to societies. Otherwise, all you'd had would be "accomplices". And also since Edward Bunker told us that actually, "dog eat dog",
> will actively hurt your own life
in a pool of free rogues you'll be at severe disadvantage as opposed to a society.
> One only lives once so you better make sure
you will achieve what you should. That includes¹ being something good, not just having some fleeting goods.
--
¹Edit: I wrote 'includes', but that's rhetoric - I meant "mostly is".
Re: Bored of It
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aging isn’t a problem. It’s normal.
Animals eat their disabled children. Humans should also do it then, since it's normal or natural. Around 100k people die from age-related disease every day. I'd be careful to dismiss that as not a problem.
And them not dying would be an even bigger problem on pretty much every single metric I can think of
Re: Bored of It
#120I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the na…
The younger generations do seem to be embracing AI more, but mainly because it can do their homework for them without requiring them to learn anything. For now at least, until curriculums have time to adjust to this new reality.
I initially picked up programming because I wanted to create things (well, initially break things, but moved on from that), and the programming was one way of doing that. I only learned how to structure my programs, because they became hard to change. I only learned testing and refactoring, because I noticed I was faster when the code was better and more tested, even if the upfront cost was slightly higher.
If I was 14-15 around this time, when I first picked up programming, but had an LLM on my side, I'm not sure what the outcome would be, to be honest. I'd use them, that's for sure, but once I got a working application out of them, would I be curious enough to understand as much as I understand now, if it wasn't required? Or would I have been able to learn even more and faster, since I wouldn't have been all alone banging my head against some trivial problem for weeks?