171–180 of 322 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trades would collapse if even 10% of the population switched to them. What does no one get about this?
I’m convinced plumbing would pay better than programming in certain neighborhoods right now now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consume the classics in audiobook form while flâneuring or gaming I can't tell if you're serious or not, but this would be like saying you've "watched" a movie because you had it on your second monitor while you were playing counter strike. There's a fundamental difference in hearing a book read to you and actually listening and engaging with the audio on a meaningful level. The latter requires focus, and you're no…
I’ve listened plenty of audiobooks while driving or walking, why would I not be able to do the same while playing GTA? The reason to do this is that just sitting in a chair ploughing through books gets very unappealing after a while. And there’s a lot of books to get through.
I think a lot of people, including, I presume, most who willingly choose to study literature, enjoy reading as an activity unto itself and so don't feel the need to add additional distractions. Not everybody finds sitting down and "ploughing through" (how disdainful a phrase!) a book unappealing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody ever could say with confidence what jobs will pe available. those who know the basics and flexible can find something.
This is at odds with professional specialisms which take years to learn. I don't think it's likely that AI will obliterate the job category of "lawyer", but that's what its boosters are claiming, and people need to make a car to house sized investment at age 18 depending on how true that is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody ever could say with confidence what jobs will pe available. those who know the basics and flexible can find something.
> those who know the basics and flexible can find something. I'm not so sure about that: I have a feeling that at least the current trend in quite some jobs is that they are looking for two kinds of people: 1. beginners who know the basics and are cheap 2. deep experts; these are paid well What is in-between gets more and more hollowed out. Thus the people who follow your advice will mostly stay in the "cheap" pool -…
Is hype cycle effect hitting hard on AI recently? The arguments aren't changing for years, and emotional components in them feel progressively toned down.
Giant investments are being made, and a lot of people's outcomes rest on them, which incentivizes them to become evangelists for the cause.
End-of-day it is a productivity boosting tool like a search-engine or a calculator - whats funny to see the human drama playing out around its adoption.
There's a deeper educational problem that's been decades in the making which is that students are trained to see school and work as a series of never ending goals to achieve. The ultimate one is to 'get a job'. Well, now nobody can really even say what jobs will be available in 5 to 10 years with high confidence. Except maybe the trades – and we mostly cut those programs out of schools a long time ago. If college stu…
Trades would collapse if even 10% of the population switched to them. What does no one get about this?
It's like a boat captain telling all his passengers to rush to one side of the boat. Any single side will tip the boat over.
There are lots of people who fail this test. Many of them are professional evaluators in the humanities. They should unquestionably lose their jobs as evaluators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yes, I'm sure if I uploaded a full text and spent time on the prompts I could get better results, although these might be similar to other students doing the same thing, which might get me a plagiarism fail. My point was that I would be very hesitant to rely on ChatGPT as an assistant in a real literature task. Many of the texts on my Eng Lit course are in copyright, as is all of the module material (the OU's c…
Your position seems to be “if you use the tool like a total dumbass, you might get a bad outcome.” Like… maybe use it intelligently?
Give me a break, it's a hammer. This is a perfectly normal "use" of ChatGPT and a good example of how a literature student may opt to try and use AI to make their work easier in some way. It also conveniently demonstrates some of the shortcomings of using a LLM for this sort of task. No need to call them a dumbass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> those who know the basics and flexible can find something. I'm not so sure about that: I have a feeling that at least the current trend in quite some jobs is that they are looking for two kinds of people: 1. beginners who know the basics and are cheap 2. deep experts; these are paid well What is in-between gets more and more hollowed out. Thus the people who follow your advice will mostly stay in the "cheap" pool -…
You can move between groups. If your expertise turns out not needed get a cheap job while learning something else.
Opposite the Turing test, there is its dual: "Can you administer a turing test? Can you tell if you are talking to a person?" There are lots of people who fail this test. Many of them are professional evaluators in the humanities. They should unquestionably lose their jobs as evaluators.