[flagged]
AI Destroys Institutions
161–165 of 165 posts
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
Local AI exist as well. It's just hard to measure it. Whats wrong with crypto decentralisation?
> Local AI exist as well. It's just hard to measure it. Yeah but you're not going to get your news from local AI, are you? you have to connect it to the internet and look up news for you, but if a lot of what's found online is AI generated and there isn't a clear way to distinguish it, then how are you better off? > Whats wrong with crypto decentralisation? It hasn't really happened? To my knowledge, a large proporti…
I find consumption of AI generated news useless. My reaction was primarily for decentralisation of AI generated tools.
I don't have numbers for crypto but auctions are not only way to buy crypto. And they do not have power to regulate value. Isn't that a sign of decentralization?
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was the same clergy (or rather parts of it) that used the printing press to great success. Martin Luther used it to spread his influence extremely quickly for example. Similarly, the clergy used new innovations in book layout and writing to spread Christianity across Europe a thousand years before that. What is weird about LLMs though, is that it isn't a simple catalyst of human labor. The printing press or the in…
Everyone who tells the story of the reformation leaves out that Martin Luther also used this new technology to widely disseminate his deranged anti-Semitic lies and conspiracies, leading to pogroms against Jews, a hundred years of war across Europe, and providing the ideological basis for the rise of Nazism.
You're right that later in his life he spread antisemitism and other terrible opinions as he was extremely elitist towards the peasantry. Definitely not a fan of that sort of thing.
But I didn't want to make a value judgement about Martin Luther's ideological legacy, but wanted to introduce some nuance into the narrative about disruptive innovation.
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dismiss the paper for 3 reasons: 1. It is entirely based on speculation of what is going to happen in the future. 2. The authors have a clear financial (and status based) interest in the outcome. 3. I have a negative opinion of lawyers and universities due to personal experience. (This is, of course, the weakest point by far.) Speculation on future outcomes is not by itself a bad thing, but when that speculation is…
What do you mean "formatted like a scientific paper?" Law review articles look like this. Scientific journals don't own the concept of an abstract, nor are law review articles pretending to be scientific research.
What does "Research paper" mean to you?
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come now. You mean the highly regulated, more competitive world of law? That too, as it is practiced in America? The once capital of economic competition? That “cartel”? Vs the leaders of an industry that built their tools through insane amounts of copyright infringement, and have forced the coining of “enshittification” to describe all pervasive business strategies? The same industry which employs acqui-hire to find…
The industry where you can be a paralegal for 20 years, but not allowed to even attempt to take the bar exam because you haven't paid your $250K and 3 years lost earnings to get your degree from the lawyer's cartel? That "competitive" industry?
Yes, it's very competitive. If you were in the unfortunate position of needing a state-appointed attorney to represent you against fallacious claims, you would appreciate the scrutiny and regulation that by and large provides fair representation to all. The legal profession believes that 3 years of study is required for all lawyers to fully immerse themselves in the study of law, and without that, something could be lost. Many lawyers think the third year is probably overkill, but these are also amongst the smarter lawyers that also recognize that many people will come to the profession with no prior interest, and that overall, it's preferable to enforce high standards. You could somehow test for whatever it is law school transmits to its pupils, and offer the exam that guarantees that lawyers have been exposed to and in some sense understood all the various aspects of the degree, but then the exam just becomes more difficult and law school becomes even more of a prerequisite. Lawyers are like airline pilots in that lives are always in the balance, and even more critically, they are foundational pillars of a just society and allowing "just anyone, even a smart test taker" to become a lawyer is less favorable than trying to improve on the current system.