71–80 of 285 posts
It's also a great example of why tech executives shouldn't be trusted, at all. "My thing will break our entire economy. I'm still gonna build it, though." - statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged
My personal thoughts on this are - A good lawyer + AI will likely win in court against a non lawyer with AI who would likely win in court against just an AI - A good software engineer + AI will ship features faster / safer vs a non engineer with AI, who will beat just AI - A good doctor + AI will save more lives than a non doctor + AI, who will perform better than just AI As long as a human has a marginal boost to AI…
> A good doctor + AI will save more lives than a non doctor + AI, who will perform better than just AI Ok, what about an Average doctor with an AI? Or how about a Bad doctor with an AI? AI assisted medcare will be good if it catches some amount of misdiagnoses AI will be terrible if it winds up reinforcing misdiagnoses My suspicion is that AI will act as a force multiplier to some extent, more than a safety net Yes,…
My personal thoughts on this are - A good lawyer + AI will likely win in court against a non lawyer with AI who would likely win in court against just an AI - A good software engineer + AI will ship features faster / safer vs a non engineer with AI, who will beat just AI - A good doctor + AI will save more lives than a non doctor + AI, who will perform better than just AI As long as a human has a marginal boost to AI…
> A good doctor + AI will save more lives than a non doctor + AI, who will perform better than just AI Ok, what about an Average doctor with an AI? Or how about a Bad doctor with an AI? AI assisted medcare will be good if it catches some amount of misdiagnoses AI will be terrible if it winds up reinforcing misdiagnoses My suspicion is that AI will act as a force multiplier to some extent, more than a safety net Yes,…
Of course AI will replace us. Just like the steam engine did, just like robots did, just like computers did. Oh, wait.
Cars replaced horses, cause they were clearly better at their job. Humans' primary labor value to society at large comes from their brains, and ability to do multiple physical tasks, some featuring precise movements, with little instruction/development. The idea that computers and general purpose robots cannot possibly replace humans is no longer outrageous to me. Especially if we are talking about a few key humans c…
I do not want to see the bloodbath that will follow
And I do pretty strongly think that is the trajectory we're on. We cannot create utopia for 1% of the population and purgatory for the other 99% and expect people to just sit still and take it
It's also a great example of why tech executives shouldn't be trusted, at all. "My thing will break our entire economy. I'm still gonna build it, though." - statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged
If you believe that breaking the economy is good you're obviously going to do it. If you believe that if you don't break the economy one of your many competitors will, you're obviously going to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A good doctor + AI will save more lives than a non doctor + AI, who will perform better than just AI Ok, what about an Average doctor with an AI? Or how about a Bad doctor with an AI? AI assisted medcare will be good if it catches some amount of misdiagnoses AI will be terrible if it winds up reinforcing misdiagnoses My suspicion is that AI will act as a force multiplier to some extent, more than a safety net Yes,…
It could make good doctors faster rather than better. This could allow them to help people who wouldn’t be able to afford them otherwise.
We’ve seen tech completely eliminate jobs like phone switch operators and lamp lighters. And it’s decimated other professions like manual agriculture, assembly line jobs, etc. It seems like people are debating whether the impact of AI on computer-based jobs will be elimination or decimation. But for the majority of people, what’s the difference?
When Henry Ford introduced the moving assembly line, production went from hundreds of cars to thousands. It had a profoundly positive impact on the secondary market, leading to an overall increase in job creation.
I've yet to see any "AI is gonna take your job" articles that even attempt to consider the impact on the secondary market. It seems their argument is that it'll be AI all the way down which is utter nonsense.
What if it just makes most jobs worse, or replaces good jobs with more, worse jobs? "Meat robot constantly monitored and directed by AI overlords" is technically a job.
> What if it just makes most jobs worse, or replaces good jobs with more, worse jobs? Right. Consider: 1) Senior engineer writing code vs. 2) Senior engineer prompting and code reviewing LLM agent The senior engineer is essential to the process in each case, because the LLM agent left to its own devices will produce nonfunctional crap. But think about the pleasantness of the job and the job satisfaction of the senior…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You (and I) prefer to keep the pilot s there, but still, there's a push to need only one person and not two in that plane/cockpit. I have little to no doubt we'll have to relearn some hard lessons after we've AI'd up pilots.
You kinda said it, but you didn't hit the nail on the head. Yes we need the pilots. But -I will repeat my own example in my current mega-corp employer- I am about to develop a solution using an LLM (premium/enterprise) that will stop a category of employees from reaching 50, and will remain to 20, and with organic wear & tear, will drop to 10, which will be the 'forever number' (until the next 'jump' in tech). So yes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could make good doctors faster rather than better. This could allow them to help people who wouldn’t be able to afford them otherwise.
Doctors already barely see patients for more than a couple of minutes, you want them to be faster ?