341–350 of 524 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I do live with it. It lives in my kitchen.
In the pecking order, it is under, not on your side. Your toaster never demanded you to make a toast.
How far are we from reliable AI? One that could, for example, handle 80% of office jobs without screwing up more than humans?
That's kind of jumping a few steps ahead; it assumes that we know 80% of office jobs can be fully automated already. And if that were the case, we'd have non-AI software doing that already. I mean we do, but it's not causing people to lose jobs en masse. (it probably did cost jobs, but more the kind that a job like data entry was replaced by OCR)
So on the one side, there’s huge opportunity for automation and job cuts. On the other, if the companies haven’t noticed the inefficiency so far, then…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like when people obsessed about 2020, or 2000. It's a nice clean number in the decimal numbering system.
No, there's a lot more to it. I never saw this kind of fuss about 2000 or 2020. I keep seeing things about how some target has to be hit by 2030. Our local council keeps going on about it, in fact their WiFi network even contains 2030!
I roll to disbelieve!
We had hype about the year 2000 throughout the 20th century, and some earlier! When we were IN the year 2000, it was quite common in my circles to tack on some phrase or comment about it being the Future, now, so [whatever thing the person was on about].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Things in the real world often take longer than expected. Still, in cities where Waymo operates, many people routinely ride autonomous vehicles and prefer them. Yes. The bottleneck has been getting the cars manufactured. It takes a certain amount of time to get a factory going, and then the product starts pouring out. Waymo used up the supply of Jaguars, about 3,500 of them. The Ioniq 5 plant is starting up.[1] Way…
Decade ago my friend thought AI driving is going to be aftermarket kit.
> Fermi asked why, given the apparent abundance of planets suitable for life, no evidence of other technologically advanced civilisations had been detected. One disquieting possibility is that intelligent life routinely reaches a technological threshold and fails to navigate it, The Fermi paradox could actually also be taken as an evidence that it's rare (at least) for artificial intelligences to take over a civiliza…
There's issues where bad people with bad intentions use AI to do bad things. But to an extent the guardrails already built-in are sufficient. The real danger in AI is how it impacts society, our economy, and our perception of self worth. I'm not afraid of rouge agents nearly as much as I'm afraid of us building a permanent underclass of people dependent on whatever scraps the people who devalued their labor decide th…
We don't need to live "side by side" with AI. AI is not alive, it's a technology we use. This is like talking about living side by side with your toaster.
Or the internet.
Oh.
There's issues where bad people with bad intentions use AI to do bad things. But to an extent the guardrails already built-in are sufficient. The real danger in AI is how it impacts society, our economy, and our perception of self worth. I'm not afraid of rouge agents nearly as much as I'm afraid of us building a permanent underclass of people dependent on whatever scraps the people who devalued their labor decide th…
I had my "wow" moment recently and saw an AI agent do something do over a weekend something that I spent years developing a relatively niche skill might have needed a month to complete. I think the message the team lead takes away right now is "oh, this can be done a lot faster, let's do more!" This is exciting for a bit, but I think it comes at the cost of learning -- and being able to communicate --architectural le…
If they truly can always recognize problems and communicate them in understandable ways, then people's skills won't atrophy.
Everyone's skills will be enhanced.
New developers will learn all of the things they need to learn through using the tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI will not help by improving extremely smart people. AI will help dumb people and dumb processes with "free" expert-level intelligence. Anyone could still ignore intelligence and make ignorant decisions. But the default mode would be highly intelligent informed decision. Example with health - a patient can read blood test results with Opus and get very good results for "free". This is far away from helping extremely…
Why would they listen to an AI, when their favorite podcaster says something contrary? I am not trying to be funny btw, people take medical advice from podcasters over doctors. I have seen this first hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there's a lot more to it. I never saw this kind of fuss about 2000 or 2020. I keep seeing things about how some target has to be hit by 2030. Our local council keeps going on about it, in fact their WiFi network even contains 2030!
> No, there's a lot more to it. I never saw this kind of fuss about 2000 I roll to disbelieve! We had hype about the year 2000 throughout the 20th century, and some earlier! When we were IN the year 2000, it was quite common in my circles to tack on some phrase or comment about it being the Future, now, so [whatever thing the person was on about].
The real Millennium turned out to be 11th September, 2001, which was use to bring in a lot of planned changes.