401–410 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not use AI to automate away the board of directors and the shareholders? It should be entirely possible. We just need an AI capable of generating its own capital, then the investor class can be removed from the loop.
This sounds horrible. You’re basically saying you want everyone to work for companies controlled by AI.
1) Chaudry's article is amazing in its lack of creative thinking. If people like Priya can be ~10 times more productive wielding some AI tools, that means that many companies can potentially produce 10 times as many products/services and make more things that will enrich peoples' lives. Though some people in some companies might be laid off, it doesn't necessarily mean that more people will be laid off than new jobs…
> 1) Chaudry's article is amazing in its lack of creative thinking. If people like Priya can be ~10 times more productive wielding some AI tools, that means that many companies can potentially produce 10 times as many products/services and make more things that will enrich peoples' lives. Though some people in some companies might be laid off, it doesn't necessarily mean that more people will be laid off than new job…
(1) trickle-down economics-style policies aren’t the only way to harness the (presumed) increased productivity of LLMs like chatgpt.
(2) I don’t see how you can argue that standards of living have decreased since the start of the industrial revolution and subsequent technological developments.
Certainly, the question of how to distribute the benefits of wide-spread LLM use is very important, since it could be done well or could be done terribly. But there’s no reason to just assume terrible is the only option.
I have a remotely similar experience a few years ago, which always got me thinking.
As lots of people know, In the US at least, when you go to the gas stations to refill, you do it yourself. It's very easy, has almost no learning curve, everyone is used to it.
When I went back to my home country (China), I was surprised that self-service refill is still not the norm. It exists, but in most of time, there are workers refilling for you. It's not even more convenient because you have to walk to the cashier inside to pay instead of staying at your vehicle.
I said to my parent that how "wasteful" it is to have all these people around. They replied that, it still provide jobs despite how low skill or how low the pay is. Without these "stupid" jobs, lots of people would be unemployed.
I started to think what the ultimate purpose of work is. Sure, we can (and will, regardless how me or the author want) continue optimizing how efficient everything is, but the benefit should, at least in part, be reducing people's workload without reducing their income. Unfortunately, we all know what actually happens: reduced workload isn't evenly distributed to workers without changing their income; instead, we just hire fewer workers with similar workload and the rest are now jobless.
I don't think it's going to change any time soon, so anyone wants to survive always has to adapt. And it's fine. But I do now have more tolerance and empathy to "worthless" jobs.
Funny thing - I've been using ChatGPT as a programming assistant. My experience with it is that the more knowledgeable I am at the domain, the more useful it is. It often generates code that won't compile or won't run correctly, but that sort of goes in the correct direction, enough that I can spot the blunders and refine my questions. Quite often I even learn a few new things when using it to explore libraries and f…
I've had a similar experience (but slightly different). The biggest innovation that ChatGPT has brought to me in my programming/workflow tasks is the comfort and ease in which it creates shell scripts. That's an area that's always been just past my comfort zone ("Create a shell script to solve this problem? Now I have two problems..."). But all of a sudden, I feel like a master at shell scripting! Things that have al…
* Telegraph Operator
* Typist / Stenographer
* Switchboard Operator
* Lamplighter
* Ice Delivery Worker
* Elevator Operator
* Film Projectionist
* Linotype Operator
* Milkman
* Coal stoker
Hi everyone, author of the article here. I'm sorry if the article sounds overly pessimistic. I'm not making any claims with this article. I'm not proposing anything either. I do think technological progress is a good thing, even in this case. But I wrote this blog because I did have an emotional response to this technology, and wanted to pen down my thoughts. Its one thing to look at a report about the economic impac…
This attitude can only stem from a society that loves to thrive off subsidies and earning bread by doing menial and repetitive assignments. What must be pondered upon is embracing GPT along with human intelligence instead without human intelligence.
Actually tens of millions lack the privilege of even knowing what doing not-menial work is.
Funny thing - I've been using ChatGPT as a programming assistant. My experience with it is that the more knowledgeable I am at the domain, the more useful it is. It often generates code that won't compile or won't run correctly, but that sort of goes in the correct direction, enough that I can spot the blunders and refine my questions. Quite often I even learn a few new things when using it to explore libraries and f…
This article is not about ChatGPT, but GPT-4. I've found the latter to be significantly better at being a coding assistant in all areas: the code actually compiles and often works out of the box. Even better than chat, I can paste it's generated code and simply respond with any errors given and it will fix it accordingly, something I had lots of trouble using chat to do. GPT-4 is that much better and it makes sense t…
For coding, at least for me, it's marginally better than 3.5. In fact, I sometimes prefer reverting back to 3.5 to get speedier output.
I am finding ChatGPT-4 much better for other tasks that have less strictness requirements. Such as parsing through a large text and summarizing it for me, and for creative tasks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because information curated by an AI with validation by a subject matter expert is worth significantly more than that which was done without a human in the loop. There's no determinism with these systems, and from experience with GPT-4 doing classification tasks, it'll do everything exactly right until it doesn't. If it's like many businesses in the classification world, they aren't lacking for work, so it's more lik…
90% quality for 10% the price means that most decisionmakers will--and they don't need to collude to do this--take that and pocket the difference. Why would 50% for 0.1% be different? 30% for 0.01%? This is the enshittification spiral to which I refer.
If I was paying someone for labeling or classification, and the quality dropped to 90%, 50%, 30% accuracy, I'd quickly fire them.