131–140 of 249 posts
> To those who believe that new jobs will emerge at meaningful rates to absorb the losses and shocks, what exactly are those new jobs? Prompt Engineering. The highest paid will be the ones who are able to extract the most value out of LLMs with the least effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the wealth of the average worker has been stagnant since the 70's - computers, the internet, etc came and brought tons of wealth, and didn't raise the standard of living. I've never thought about computers that way - they got here, and didn't make everyone's lives better - they just accelerated wealth concentration in the top 1%.
> computers, the internet, etc came and brought tons of wealth, and didn't raise the standard of living Huh?? What world are you living in where the standard of living hasn't increased in the last 50 years?
Wages have remained flat, cost of consumer electronics have gone down, cost of education, healthcare, and housing has gone way up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in my (very large) Western firm: it's exactly what I said
The market will determine the winner: a few high profile cases where AI enhanced arguments dominate people who are tying their hands behind their back will turn the tide.
legislation, not the market will determine the outcome of the artificial "intelligence" battle
and large traditional industries are rather good at lobbying against their upstart complements
(the fact the RIAA and MPAA even still exist is proof of this point)
Every few years a new technology goes mainstream and quickly changes the world around us rather fundamentally. I’ve lived through the web in 1995. Google in 2000. Web 2.0 in 2005. Smartphones in 2009. Now it’s generative AI in 2023. Every time, there’s an argument about whether it’s the end of the world or a total nothingburger. Every time, industry leaders are knocked off their perch. Every time, there are surprise…
The concern with the Web and mobile was mental health, obsolete jobs, etc. No one was making existencial risk comparisons with nuclear weapons. Jobs and Berners-Lee didn’t think there was at least a 10% chance of the iPhone or Web ending civilization, like half of AI researchers do. Like the author said, it’s different this time.
To summarize: The claim—that half of AI researchers believe that there is at least a 10% chance that rogue AI will kill us all—is based on a survey question that included 162 respondents. All we know about these respondents is that they were authors on papers published at 2021 machine learning conferences. Possible confounding issues are vagueness of the question, small sample size, response bias, confidence of responses, and level of expertise.
https://aiguide.substack.com/p/do-half-of-ai-researchers-bel...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would wager in 10 years time we're all looking back in dismay about how AI has just been used to produce an endless stream of fake news, empty-feeling generated content, spam, ads and other forms of monetisation that make our lives miserable. Some menial administrative jobs that have virtually no value but aren't yet fully automated will be wiped out by conglomerates who offer their white label AI solutions at scal…
> I would wager in 10 years time we're all looking back in dismay about how AI has just been used to produce an endless stream of fake news, empty-feeling generated content, spam, ads and other forms of monetisation that make our lives miserable. I don't think we will have wait 10 months for that, let alone 10 years.
Of the remainder, most were highly entertaining—-which is a form of productivity in itself.
Every few years a new technology goes mainstream and quickly changes the world around us rather fundamentally. I’ve lived through the web in 1995. Google in 2000. Web 2.0 in 2005. Smartphones in 2009. Now it’s generative AI in 2023. Every time, there’s an argument about whether it’s the end of the world or a total nothingburger. Every time, industry leaders are knocked off their perch. Every time, there are surprise…
Anybody else feel like smartphones were overall net negative? I like cell phones they fit a particular need that I think most people would agree is a net good. But smart phones? I don't fucking want to see any of this stuff on my phone its just like cigarettes, feels nice but in the long run just makes you feel sicker. And people would say ok just don't get one but I sort of feel like its not just a me thing, most pe…
My internet-connected smart phone allows me to pay securely for things, unlock the public city bikes for local transit, find quickly directions for a place, provide me answers to questions, read books at the cafe, etc...
All this without a single wallet or bag of "stuff" dangling over my shoulders.
Now... I don't have a facebook account ... YMMV ... :)
> To those who believe that new jobs will emerge at meaningful rates to absorb the losses and shocks, what exactly are those new jobs? Prompt Engineering. The highest paid will be the ones who are able to extract the most value out of LLMs with the least effort.
Nah. "Prompt Engineering" is the burger flipping of software.
But the prompt I’m using for GPT-3.5 was generated by GPT-4.
> It is just a glorified probabilistic text generator.
> It is just a “stochastic parrot”.
> It “hallucinates”.
> It is not “intelligent” the way humans are.
> It does not actually “think” like humans.
> It will never get human qualities like humour.[4]
> It is snake oil and is no different from any other technology that has come before.
> If it causes job losses, new jobs will emerge, like with all previous technological revolutions.
The OP cites all of these as 'moving goalposts' but I'm not sure how, given that they're all true? Like all of the hype I see around LLMs is all the same hype I saw around from Bitcoin. It's by people that haven't used it in a professional environment, with no clue about the actual flaws, limitations or issues. And companies are intent on selling you a solution in search of a problem because they want to create aa product hype cycle.
It feels different because you've bitten onto the bait. Personally given the code output and so forth I've seen from LLMs I'd highly doubt the experience of any software engineer that uses it in their day to day life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would wager in 10 years time we're all looking back in dismay about how AI has just been used to produce an endless stream of fake news, empty-feeling generated content, spam, ads and other forms of monetisation that make our lives miserable. I don't think we will have wait 10 months for that, let alone 10 years.
The size of my chat log with ChatGPT speaks against that. The vast majority of the conversations were productive. Of the remainder, most were highly entertaining—-which is a form of productivity in itself.