I think my point is, the consumer versions of AI, like chat bots, are pretty shit, and they’re making us dumber. They’re also kind of dangerous, of which we’ve already seen numerous examples.
I’m also not interested as a programmer. I’m not looking to bug hunt as a profession. I want to make my own bugs, dammit! That’s the fun part! To create something! Not fix something a machine made until it’s ready to ship. How boring.
Ok but there’s a distinction between “you don’t see the value in it”, and “there is no value in it.” The first means, congrats don’t use it, leave everyone else alone, unless you want to sound like Ben Shapiro claiming hip-hop isn’t music. The second is much harder to demonstrate, particularly as it’s value has already been demonstrated to many people. Just as an example, it turned a blank page into a covering letter that I could edit into what I wanted, breaking through blank page paralysis=value. Maybe it’s very little value, but it’s still value. Not the only use case for generative AI, or the best one.
Back in my day calculators were making us dumber, and to be clear I would accent that mental numeracy ability is lower now, but not that we’re dumber for having them. Luddite arguments are not convincing, I suppose I’m still hearing “calculators are making us dumber”
My use of a calculator is not making me dumber, just faster. I can do the calculations, just not as fast. And I have to know what needs to be calculated in order to get the correct results. AI is more like “give me a budget that works for me”. I fear AI will allow us to bypass having to learn anything and prevent us from thinking at all. The leap is too great.
It could/should definitely be used as a tool, but IMO not used to create whole solutions.
Scaffolding = fine, I guess, but I think it can be a slippery slope if abused.
I have an example of actual people using AI to generate a vacation itinerary for them, and they just printed it and followed it on their vacation. Could potentially be dangerous, first of all. And it’s literally following the will of a computer and experiencing its version of your vacation instead of doing a little bit of research into what you want to do and see and experience.
I don’t know. I just have a bad gut feeling about it.
It’s not Luddite either, I am usually one to adopt tech very quickly and be optimistic about new shit. I for example trust my car to keep pace after other cars and automatically break when the car in front slows down. This is new tech for me as of this year. But what I’m seeing right now with AI induces strong skepticism for me. I have actual people I know that have lost whole projects due to vibe coding.
And the numerous examples of AI being blatantly yet confidently incorrect, racist, suicide coercion, all kinds of shit. Having its input be based on human output just doesn’t feel good. That’s not a good feedback loop. It’s not conducive to independent thought, at its very core.
Correct, calculators can make you quicker… Just like they made me quicker with my cover letter. A pocket calculator would make my writing a cover letter slower though. Correct tool, correct job. I will accept for some jobs there isn’t an appropriate calculator yet.
Let’s reframe the issue with your car using your braked for you. You don’t see potential dangers in trusting a machine with acceleration and breaking? Tesla is screaming that you should.
But for cruise control you have accepted certain dangers and for AI you haven’t. That’s fine, don’t use it. For my own experience, the car can accelerate but the brakes are mine always, for if it does weird things with the power.
It is luddite though. “Tech is potentially dangerous” is luddite. I agree, it is potentially dangerous, so are knives, cars, etc. but we accept potential dangers in society, I would like them better regulated (deep fakes are bad yo) but I wouldn’t throw away scalpels because knife crime is on the rise.
We agree that AI has its uses and can be the correct tool for (many!) jobs.
You don’t see potential dangers in trusting a machine with acceleration and breaking? Tesla is screaming that you should.
I think there definitely are dangers, in the wrong hands. For my own personal experience, I use this technology, but I don’t trust it. That’s why I’m always vigilant, and I never fully let myself not pay attention to the road. Always keep my hands on the wheel and pedals if need be. The danger lies in people trusting these immature technologies (too much or at all).
I don’t know what Tesla says, I don’t pay attention to them because I don’t drive Tesla.
Anyway, one technology is touted as intelligent, and gives you answers. The other is marketed as a tool that can increase security, but with a huge disclaimer that the driver is always responsible for keeping an eye on the road and managing the breaks when necessary. (This is Volvo btw.)
It is luddite though.
Alright, call it whatever you want to call it. I don’t know if labelling makes any difference to our argumentation here. Both of our points still stand. All I was trying to say is that I’m not opposed AI for being afraid of the unknown or something, but because I know how it works and that’s what makes me hesitant to use it. AI makes mistakes, and teaches people bullshit with confidence. As well as all those other things you ignored.
But if we find a way to take out the human part of its inputs, then AI can be a really strong tool. Then I might consider using it for more things. But I still like to stay analog for some things, because living a more analog life I think is better and healthier for people in general.
If we rely on computers to make even basic day-to-day decisions for us, we are headed down a path that seems unhealthy. Like I said, it wouldn’t be conducive to independent thought.
I think we mostly agree, at least we don’t disgree on anything substantive. Except the last fear mongery paragraph. My grouchy math teacher said the same sort of things about pocket calculators. Here we have another calculator, quite literally, and the same sort of arguments being made.
I didn’t mean listen to what Tesla says, but listen to what they do. They had a problem killing cruiser motorcyclists because the two break lights low to the ground they have resembles a car far away. Anyway, my own luddite problems with car tech aside. It’s not a reason for you to stop using it, nor would I try convince you.
My main problem is with the anti-AI people, for the reasons I’ve already gone over. Grouchy math teacher arguments aren’t convincing. Anti-capitalist arguments aren’t an argument against AI but capitalism. The ethical arguments (deep fakes) are half convincing but could be handled legislatively.
When you imply that I am a fear mongerer, and grouchy, that honestly turns me off of this conversation. I’m not interested in these passive-aggressive ad hominems. I don’t know if you realize your rudeness, but sir, please.
Your wording also implies that you generalize me as/among “anti-AI ‘people’”. I’m not anti-AI. You lean heavily on the “old geezer against tech” argument, but that’s not what’s going on here and you won’t hear otherwise. I’m not even 40, bro.
You’ve been borderline civil here, so you know.
I know you’ve heard some of my arguments and I thank you for acknowledging those. I’ve heard yours as well, I hope you take my word for it. But this is where I’m done. I wish you luck in using AI, and have a good day. Peace.
I think my point is, the consumer versions of AI, like chat bots, are pretty shit, and they’re making us dumber. They’re also kind of dangerous, of which we’ve already seen numerous examples.
I’m also not interested as a programmer. I’m not looking to bug hunt as a profession. I want to make my own bugs, dammit! That’s the fun part! To create something! Not fix something a machine made until it’s ready to ship. How boring.
Ok but there’s a distinction between “you don’t see the value in it”, and “there is no value in it.” The first means, congrats don’t use it, leave everyone else alone, unless you want to sound like Ben Shapiro claiming hip-hop isn’t music. The second is much harder to demonstrate, particularly as it’s value has already been demonstrated to many people. Just as an example, it turned a blank page into a covering letter that I could edit into what I wanted, breaking through blank page paralysis=value. Maybe it’s very little value, but it’s still value. Not the only use case for generative AI, or the best one.
Back in my day calculators were making us dumber, and to be clear I would accent that mental numeracy ability is lower now, but not that we’re dumber for having them. Luddite arguments are not convincing, I suppose I’m still hearing “calculators are making us dumber”
My use of a calculator is not making me dumber, just faster. I can do the calculations, just not as fast. And I have to know what needs to be calculated in order to get the correct results. AI is more like “give me a budget that works for me”. I fear AI will allow us to bypass having to learn anything and prevent us from thinking at all. The leap is too great.
It could/should definitely be used as a tool, but IMO not used to create whole solutions.
Scaffolding = fine, I guess, but I think it can be a slippery slope if abused.
I have an example of actual people using AI to generate a vacation itinerary for them, and they just printed it and followed it on their vacation. Could potentially be dangerous, first of all. And it’s literally following the will of a computer and experiencing its version of your vacation instead of doing a little bit of research into what you want to do and see and experience.
I don’t know. I just have a bad gut feeling about it.
It’s not Luddite either, I am usually one to adopt tech very quickly and be optimistic about new shit. I for example trust my car to keep pace after other cars and automatically break when the car in front slows down. This is new tech for me as of this year. But what I’m seeing right now with AI induces strong skepticism for me. I have actual people I know that have lost whole projects due to vibe coding.
And the numerous examples of AI being blatantly yet confidently incorrect, racist, suicide coercion, all kinds of shit. Having its input be based on human output just doesn’t feel good. That’s not a good feedback loop. It’s not conducive to independent thought, at its very core.
Correct, calculators can make you quicker… Just like they made me quicker with my cover letter. A pocket calculator would make my writing a cover letter slower though. Correct tool, correct job. I will accept for some jobs there isn’t an appropriate calculator yet.
Let’s reframe the issue with your car using your braked for you. You don’t see potential dangers in trusting a machine with acceleration and breaking? Tesla is screaming that you should.
But for cruise control you have accepted certain dangers and for AI you haven’t. That’s fine, don’t use it. For my own experience, the car can accelerate but the brakes are mine always, for if it does weird things with the power.
It is luddite though. “Tech is potentially dangerous” is luddite. I agree, it is potentially dangerous, so are knives, cars, etc. but we accept potential dangers in society, I would like them better regulated (deep fakes are bad yo) but I wouldn’t throw away scalpels because knife crime is on the rise.
We agree that AI has its uses and can be the correct tool for (many!) jobs.
I think there definitely are dangers, in the wrong hands. For my own personal experience, I use this technology, but I don’t trust it. That’s why I’m always vigilant, and I never fully let myself not pay attention to the road. Always keep my hands on the wheel and pedals if need be. The danger lies in people trusting these immature technologies (too much or at all).
I don’t know what Tesla says, I don’t pay attention to them because I don’t drive Tesla.
Anyway, one technology is touted as intelligent, and gives you answers. The other is marketed as a tool that can increase security, but with a huge disclaimer that the driver is always responsible for keeping an eye on the road and managing the breaks when necessary. (This is Volvo btw.)
Alright, call it whatever you want to call it. I don’t know if labelling makes any difference to our argumentation here. Both of our points still stand. All I was trying to say is that I’m not opposed AI for being afraid of the unknown or something, but because I know how it works and that’s what makes me hesitant to use it. AI makes mistakes, and teaches people bullshit with confidence. As well as all those other things you ignored.
But if we find a way to take out the human part of its inputs, then AI can be a really strong tool. Then I might consider using it for more things. But I still like to stay analog for some things, because living a more analog life I think is better and healthier for people in general.
If we rely on computers to make even basic day-to-day decisions for us, we are headed down a path that seems unhealthy. Like I said, it wouldn’t be conducive to independent thought.
I think we mostly agree, at least we don’t disgree on anything substantive. Except the last fear mongery paragraph. My grouchy math teacher said the same sort of things about pocket calculators. Here we have another calculator, quite literally, and the same sort of arguments being made.
I didn’t mean listen to what Tesla says, but listen to what they do. They had a problem killing cruiser motorcyclists because the two break lights low to the ground they have resembles a car far away. Anyway, my own luddite problems with car tech aside. It’s not a reason for you to stop using it, nor would I try convince you.
My main problem is with the anti-AI people, for the reasons I’ve already gone over. Grouchy math teacher arguments aren’t convincing. Anti-capitalist arguments aren’t an argument against AI but capitalism. The ethical arguments (deep fakes) are half convincing but could be handled legislatively.
When you imply that I am a fear mongerer, and grouchy, that honestly turns me off of this conversation. I’m not interested in these passive-aggressive ad hominems. I don’t know if you realize your rudeness, but sir, please.
Your wording also implies that you generalize me as/among “anti-AI ‘people’”. I’m not anti-AI. You lean heavily on the “old geezer against tech” argument, but that’s not what’s going on here and you won’t hear otherwise. I’m not even 40, bro.
You’ve been borderline civil here, so you know.
I know you’ve heard some of my arguments and I thank you for acknowledging those. I’ve heard yours as well, I hope you take my word for it. But this is where I’m done. I wish you luck in using AI, and have a good day. Peace.