Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement • Hacker News Board

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#161

Post by matchagaucho » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 7:55 PM UTC

charlieyu1 wrote: post #122

gwoolhurme wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is fine when it comes to competition. How does a graphic artist or programmer compete?

The best ones will stay. People are still buying hand made items because they are unique and of better quality than those mass produced. I know a few graphical artists, they would tell you that half of their pay is for dealing with annoying customers, and I can't see AI is going to make the clients happy.

I'm also seeing a lot of Graphic/3D Artists incorporating AI prompts into their craft.

Generative AI is just one-step in the overall process.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#162

Post by naveen99 » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 8:31 PM UTC

throwoutway wrote: post #156

catchnear4321 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tutor for whatever the kid has the curiosity to ask. You don’t need to be a “prompt engineer” to get use out of a language model. You just have to recognize what it is, and what it isn’t. If that can’t be taught to children, there’s no sense fretting over AI. We don’t need it to fail.

I'd rather kids not be taught by something that hallucinates and spits out accurate-sounding lies. The education system is already struggling to teach kids to read and has been removing math from california schools (two front page news here this week). Adding a lying tutor should be classified as child neglect. That said, I like the AI, but only as an adult who has enough training to question whether I'm being lied t…

Newspapers and the government already basically spit out accurate sounding lies all the time also.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#163

Post by ChatGTP » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 11:09 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #159

ChatGTP wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so what will they be doing instead ?

Playing? Actually enjoying their childhoods?

Then, where do they get money from and food, will that be provided for fee by AGIs? Who will own the AGI systems ? How will they ensure they’re in alignment with the children’s goals ?

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#164

Post by yellowapple » Sat, Apr 22, 2023, 8:28 AM UTC

ChatGTP wrote: post #163

yellowapple wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing? Actually enjoying their childhoods?

Then, where do they get money from and food, will that be provided for fee by AGIs? Who will own the AGI systems ? How will they ensure they’re in alignment with the children’s goals ?

> Then, where do they get money from and food, will that be provided for fee by AGIs?

Works for me.

> Who will own the AGI systems ?

Communities, ideally:

> How will they ensure they’re in alignment with the children’s goals ?

Community ownership tends to produce the best alignments with the goals of said community - including the children thereof.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#165

Post by ChatGTP » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 12:18 AM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #164

ChatGTP wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then, where do they get money from and food, will that be provided for fee by AGIs? Who will own the AGI systems ? How will they ensure they’re in alignment with the children’s goals ?

> Then, where do they get money from and food, will that be provided for fee by AGIs? Works for me. > Who will own the AGI systems ? Communities, ideally: > How will they ensure they’re in alignment with the children’s goals ? Community ownership tends to produce the best alignments with the goals of said community - including the children thereof.

At what stage with the AGI be handed over to “the people”.

I’m not being a prick on purpose, but one should ask these questions rather than reaching for blind optimism.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#166

Post by intrasight » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 12:55 AM UTC

anonzzzies wrote: post #111

intrasight wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe even doctors and lawyers I don't think any profession that requires a license is at risk. Software engineers resisted a licensing regiment for decades and now the profession will pay a price.

They are at risk; the ones that use AI will remove the ones that don’t in the end. The average lawyer does very little already; last week I had some papers that I needed to be checked legally; gpt4 found some issues that the expensive lawyer overlooked. Not big issues but issues. And this document was not in English either. It explained the issues in English, it provided a lot of text which the lawyer did not. But th…

I agree and disagree.

Law firms make money, like any professional services firm, by billing hours. Fewer billable hours means less income for the partners. So while it's the low hanging fruit technically, it will resist as long as possible. It will be clients saying no to paying $250-$500 an hour for work that AI could do better and for free that will force the issue. I foresee more legal work moving in-house.

Medicine is a different beast. There's an acute shortage and a different incentive model (not run as partnerships). Big hospital/medical/insurance firms will invest most heavily in AI.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#167

Post by yellowapple » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 5:53 AM UTC

ChatGTP wrote: post #165

yellowapple wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then, where do they get money from and food, will that be provided for fee by AGIs? Works for me. > Who will own the AGI systems ? Communities, ideally: > How will they ensure they’re in alignment with the children’s goals ? Community ownership tends to produce the best alignments with the goals of said community - including the children thereof.

At what stage with the AGI be handed over to “the people”. I’m not being a prick on purpose, but one should ask these questions rather than reaching for blind optimism.

> At what stage with the AGI be handed over to “the people”.

That's pretty much automatic if the AGI is free software trained on free data.

> I’m not being a prick on purpose

You ain't being a prick at all; they're questions worth asking. Their answers do depend on optimism, but said optimism ain't "blind" in the slightest; rather, the optimism is a prescription: a goal for which we should be striving, and which we should be keeping in mind in our slow march toward an AGI-enabled potentially-post-scarcity society.