181–190 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've had YouTube for two decades now. Cheap education was already available for those who wanted it.
Youtube is insanely ineffecient compared to a good AI model in interactive mode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does a person need to be disciplined because they made a mistake?
A couple years ago I was at the Virginia DMV along with about 50 other people doing DMV things when all of a sudden someone comes out from the back and gets in front of all the service windows and announces "The DMV is now closed for the day due to a computer problem. Please leave now." Some of the people in that crowd had driven hours to get there. That's why the person who made the coding error should have been dis…
Sounds to me they are seriously underfunded and you are pointing the blame at an individual in a systemic issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does pangram work?
Alas, tl;dr: no. (it caught the one above, easily, but didn't catch ones from Opus 4.6, it's very confident they're 100% human. as I would be :/ )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas, tl;dr: no. (it caught the one above, easily, but didn't catch ones from Opus 4.6, it's very confident they're 100% human. as I would be :/ )
Why is that a tldr no if it did indeed catch the blatant ai comment? Are you funded by the competitor? Lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So if this is a tool, the fault lies fully in the user, and if this is treated as “another persons work” then the user knowingly passed the work onto someone not authorized to do it. Both end up in the user being guilty. I am particularly against this point of view, because we as a community have long touted how computers can do the job better and faster, and that computers don’t make mistakes. When there are bugs,…
> we as a community have long touted ... that computers don’t make mistakes. No community I know. Otherwise, I agree.
Everybody in sales in every software company in the world would be part of that community, I think. Some of the devs, too. Software was always marketed (and discussed with normal people) as something that could automate error-prone tasks, thereby eliminating the inevitable mistakes humans make when performing those tasks. Would Excel be the cornerstone of so many businesses if it sometimes gave the wrong value as a sum of a column?
That marketing (and the fact that, indeed, Excel can sum anything users throw at it without making mistakes) worked; now we have 3 generations of users who believe that once a computer "gets it" (ie. the correct software is installed and properly configured), it will perform a task given to it correctly forever. The fact that it's almost true (true in the absence of bugs and no changes to the setup, no updates, no hardware degradation, no space rays flipping important bits, etc.) doesn't help - that preceding parenthetical is hard to understand and often omitted when a developer talks to a non-developer.
We've always had software that wasn't as reliable as Excel - speech recognition and OCR come to mind. But in those cases, the errors are plainly visible - they cannot be "confidently wrong". Now we have LLMs that can be confidently wrong, and a vast number of users trained to think that software is either always right or, when it's wrong, it's immediately noticeable.
I don't think developers should bear the whole responsibility here - I think marketing had a much larger role in shaping users' minds. However, devs not clearly communicating the risks of bugs to users (for fear of scaring potential customers or out of laziness) over decades makes us partly responsible as well.
There will be many more things like this and it’s an elephant in the room for the supposed mass replacement of people with AI. Some human still has to be accountable. Someone has to get fired / go to jail when something screws up. You can make humans more productive but for the foreseeable future you can’t take the human out of the loop to have an AI implementation that’s not a disaster/lawsuit waiting to happen. Tha…
There will be many more things like this and it’s an elephant in the room for the supposed mass replacement of people with AI. Some human still has to be accountable. Someone has to get fired / go to jail when something screws up. You can make humans more productive but for the foreseeable future you can’t take the human out of the loop to have an AI implementation that’s not a disaster/lawsuit waiting to happen. Tha…
Why? The logic of ever less personal pride, involvement, and care, is eventually to just put the blame on AI and be done with it.
Issues? Casualties? It's a bug, somebody fixes it and we move on. Or is just a cost we need to get used to to live in the great new world of AI.
We're in an era where nobody involved goes to jail for the Epstein case, and the world keeps turning, and we think people will care if nobody goes to jail if somebody loses their pension or gets wrongly imprisoned or dies on an operating table because of AI mistake?
If anything, legal, union and other limitations like that on who gets to decide (having to have a human ultimately responsible) might be torn down, to fullu embrace the blame-shifting capabilities of the digital bureucracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, AI is going to be like when land lines became unnecessary when cellphones showed up in India. India may get to skip an entire intellectual generation due to the ability of a cheap model to educate (in any language). The narrative that an entire population are “worth” less, paid less , know less, live less … Fuck this less shit, embrace the paradigm shift. God is finally providing the remedial support through the…
Some people are worth more than others. Some cultures are better than others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that a tldr no if it did indeed catch the blatant ai comment? Are you funded by the competitor? Lol
Because it caught one of four :) because it's unclear what "works" means, I spelled it all out. :)
Randomness would also catch 'some but not all', after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we as a community have long touted ... that computers don’t make mistakes. No community I know. Otherwise, I agree.
> No community I know. Everybody in sales in every software company in the world would be part of that community, I think. Some of the devs, too. Software was always marketed (and discussed with normal people) as something that could automate error-prone tasks, thereby eliminating the inevitable mistakes humans make when performing those tasks. Would Excel be the cornerstone of so many businesses if it sometimes gave…
That's far from a community touting that computers don’t make mistakes.
> Would Excel be the cornerstone of so many businesses if it sometimes gave the wrong value as a sum of a column?
You mean like if it was running on a Pentium with the FDIV bug? :)
I agree there's a perception computer output is generally reliable, and that leaves users at the mercy of snake oil parrots that are generally unreliable and are sold without a warning. But I don't agree the cause is that touting.