We have lost a great deal of artistry in calligraphy, and no doubt a printing press uses more energy than a pencil, but we can't really stop Pandora's box one it's opened. Regardless of how people feel about it, it's here, it's cheaper, so here it will remain. As defeatist and cynical as it sounds, we might as well give in and try to be on the side making the money.
Ms Adams' story in the article reflects this, in some respect unfortunate, reality.
trinsic2•1h ago
There will be a subset of people that will avoid the harmful parts of this technology. But I see the strengths of using it. I like the parts where it helps humans improve there creative/scientific endeavors, like using the technology to run certain parts of a game engine to enhance a in-game world, but I will always prefer a human touch.
In my profession I avoid using because I really don't need it. There are part of my business where I want to focus and parts I would want to delegate to this technology. For instance, im not a coder by trade so I could see using some crash analysis AI[0] to help me debug issues.
I think articles like this don't garner a lot of attention, because why would anybody even bother to engage? If you don't see this unstoppable steam train for what it is, well, enjoy your screaming in the void.
We can all agree the current generation of AI lacks humanity, but we are not going to stop using it because of that. Would be nice if we can get the energy cost down though.
FeteCommuniste•1h ago
So where is this unstoppable train headed? To me and a lot of others, it looks like a future where the two available professions are "manager of chatbots" and "doing some boring physical task that's not (yet) profitable to automate."
ep103•52m ago
So basically the current system? I say that mostly, but not entirely, jokingly. : )
abc_lisper•32m ago
Idk. Outsource thinking to bots - we become its senses - even if only it is only about interacting with other people. There are things about humanity and ourselves we don't know much about, and I doubt machines do either, because all its "knowledge" comes curated from humans. I guess we become only the knowledge creators for a while, or guide knowledge creation with machines, have machines put guard rails around the knowledge creation, so we don't chase dead-ends as often, take care of ourselves better, health and relationships wise. We can now dream bigger, address intractable problems like recycling trash 100%, because we have little agents with intelligence that do our thinking for us. May be one day, we can edit DNA to have our own little bees with programmed intelligence flying around, pollinating flowers in the winter, making the earth truly human serving (and any animals we like - don't hate me, that's humanity as it acts). May be then we reach for the stars and go on doing more stuff. Its the beginning of infinity, dammit ;)
RadiozRadioz•2h ago
Ms Adams' story in the article reflects this, in some respect unfortunate, reality.
trinsic2•1h ago
In my profession I avoid using because I really don't need it. There are part of my business where I want to focus and parts I would want to delegate to this technology. For instance, im not a coder by trade so I could see using some crash analysis AI[0] to help me debug issues.
[0]: https://svnscha.de/posts/ai-meets-windbg/