There are a lot of people getting very weird while useing AI, another big bunch of people who hate AI, and of course AI itself is weird, but I have no direct contact with AI while it finds my web sites and sends me work through some process that remains opaque to me.
I have become quick to close any page that has strange gramar of phrasing, and no longer accept any claims or declarations that I cant verify indipendently.
Having always been very very picky about any media I consume, I find it easy to avoid
seeing anything that has been made useing AI.
The whole upshot for me has been to spend more time doing real stuff and making money, which attracts more people to spend time with me.
Everybody's Weirded Out by AI–Except the People Who Foist It on Us
61–70 of 82 posts
Re: Everybody's Weirded Out by AI–Except the People Who Foist It on Us
#62Blanket claims like "Everbody" are trivially falsifiable. I'm not "weirded out" by AI, and I'm not foisting it on anyone. There's a strange vein of aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous) even if it hasn't yet cured cancer, led to 100% unemployment, solved nuclear fusion, etc.
You’re right, that’s a flourish. But more importantly, the author isn’t claiming no one uses it / finds it useful. Her point is about potential problems that could occur as its real (though flawed) utility drives its broader adoption in particular arenas.
Re: Everybody's Weirded Out by AI–Except the People Who Foist It on Us
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
My first-impression is that this site is vaporware generated by someone prompting an LLM to babble about how an LLM could be secured. At best, perhaps it's an overengineered way to force humans to rigorously validate every action... which the humans are all very hostile to doing. > [Architecture page] Reasoning is Read-Only: Input=Data, not Instructions This doesn't make make sense unless the "reasoning" is regular e…
Read enough of EGreg’s posts and you’ll immediately recognize that this site is definitely his but at least LLMs stopped him posting about qbix all the time, a sweet mercy
Huh, if that site is indeed theirs, that means they are now accusing strangers (me) of fabricating quotes from their own pitch-deck!
That raises some interesting questions about the creation process. I like to believe that authors should recognize their own works.
Re: Everybody's Weirded Out by AI–Except the People Who Foist It on Us
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure there is nothing about “complex workflows broken down into encrypted graph segments”. Did you just make that up to add some oomph? The actual point of the article was: recursive self improvement is scary and upredictable, you can get 99% of the benefit by doing the reliable and predictable thing instead. Did you even read the actual article? I didn’t see anything in your comment about that main thesis whi…
> Pretty sure there is nothing about “complex workflows broken down into encrypted graph segments”. In the quotes I noted [Architecture Page], which is the extremely prominent blue button/link on the SafeBots homepage. (To a PDF.) It's on the slide "Scalability: Distributed Reasoning & Encrypted DAGs", number 11 with a black background. > Did you just make that up I choose to take this false-accusation as a positive…
[deleted]
Re: Everybody's Weirded Out by AI–Except the People Who Foist It on Us
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read enough of EGreg’s posts and you’ll immediately recognize that this site is definitely his but at least LLMs stopped him posting about qbix all the time, a sweet mercy
I’m flattered that you followed my posts long enough to have an opinion on all this and even can recognize if a site is “definitely mine”. Question though — what do you have against what I’m saying or working hard towards? Trying to create healthier versions of technologies and help people? https://www.laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/
go back through all of your comments from the last decade, group them by comments that promote/mention one of your projects and comments that do not. I’d ballpark 95% of your comments have been self-aggrandizing self-promotion, it is exhausting to read. I guess today was the day I said something when I saw someone else suffering through another one of your comments. You might want to create healthier technology but you have contributed nothing to HN in almost 20 years, almost impressive enough to be an achievement unto itself. I’d eat my hat if I could find a substantive comment you’ve ever written that wasn’t self-promotion.
Re: Everybody's Weirded Out by AI–Except the People Who Foist It on Us
#66> A study by MIT found that students who use AI to write show far less brain activity than those who used classic Google searching (with AI off) or those who used neither. Other studies find that students who use AI retain far less of the information that ends up in their writing, possibly as a result of “cognitive offloading” and “cognitive surrender.” I'm unconvinced that AI will make us all dumber. In the public p…
> What kinds of students gravitate towards cheating tools to complete their coursework? Typically speaking, the ones that run companies. > On the other hand, the opportunity for AI to act as a personal tutor, meeting you at your own skill and knowledge level, is limitless. To be especially contrarian here, people said the exact same thing about the internet. That it would let you connect with anyone and truly evolve…
Dunno about that. I can fix a lot more stuff around the house thanks to YouTube. I have picked up a bunch of programming knowledge via the internet that I never would have without it. The internet has delivered on a lot of its promises.
Re: Everybody's Weirded Out by AI–Except the People Who Foist It on Us
#67Blanket claims like "Everbody" are trivially falsifiable. I'm not "weirded out" by AI, and I'm not foisting it on anyone. There's a strange vein of aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous) even if it hasn't yet cured cancer, led to 100% unemployment, solved nuclear fusion, etc.
Also that AI is "making society dumber overall" seems dubious.
Re: Everybody's Weirded Out by AI–Except the People Who Foist It on Us
#68Blanket claims like "Everbody" are trivially falsifiable. I'm not "weirded out" by AI, and I'm not foisting it on anyone. There's a strange vein of aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous) even if it hasn't yet cured cancer, led to 100% unemployment, solved nuclear fusion, etc.
I think a bit of the aggressive denialism comes from sour grapes that American society’s best hope for UBI came from capitalists in tech instead of progressives in policy.
UBI used to be a bit of a funny reddit pipe dream. Now it’s a serious long term hypothetical being trialed in the short term and that’s solely as a result of AI progress.
When that result undermines the tenet that capitalism is the root of human suffering, it’s simplest to just reject the result wholesale.
Re: Everybody's Weirded Out by AI–Except the People Who Foist It on Us
#69Blanket claims like "Everbody" are trivially falsifiable. I'm not "weirded out" by AI, and I'm not foisting it on anyone. There's a strange vein of aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous) even if it hasn't yet cured cancer, led to 100% unemployment, solved nuclear fusion, etc.
"Blanket claims like "Everybody" are trivially falsifiable."
As are claims like "No one" or "99.9%"
How many times per week are such claims made on HN and in similar forums with respect to software and hardware
curl https://hn.algolia.com/api/v1/search?query=no+one&tags=comment |grep -Eo '\"nbHits\":[0-9]+'
How often do HN commenters use the trivially falsifiable term "everybody"
curl https://hn.algolia.com/api/v1/search?query=everybody&tags=comment|egrep -o '\"nbHits\":[0-9]+'
I read the article but found no hint of "aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous)"
Instead I found a statement that the author finds AI "incredibly" useful:
"An AI summary would have been incredibly useful"
Where, specifically, is the "aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous)" in this article
The author's point as I understood it is about "AI" _hype_ not "AI" usefulness. The issue she has is with the _people_ who are hyping "AI" and the actual or potential effects of that hype
Re: Everybody's Weirded Out by AI–Except the People Who Foist It on Us
#70Blanket claims like "Everbody" are trivially falsifiable. I'm not "weirded out" by AI, and I'm not foisting it on anyone. There's a strange vein of aggressive-denialism that anyone could find AI genuinely useful (bordering on miraculous) even if it hasn't yet cured cancer, led to 100% unemployment, solved nuclear fusion, etc.
This.
I still think AI is at root at UI improvement for working with computers. It's an equivalent to the general move of command line interaction to WIMP.
Freaking out over this seems like nothing to me so much as that Tracy/Hepburn movie ... Desk Set.