- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t think she’s wrong. Treating Generative AI LLM’S as an innovation and studied to see what it can do and how it can benefit a business makes as much sense as any other innovation.
Pretending it is the panacea to all that ails every company in spite of the rot it’s actually directly causing is the problem, but the solution isn’t to change the way we implement AI.
It’s fruit of the poison tree at this point. You’re asking someone who’s already been burned by the fire that’s been let to rage out of control to build a smaller more manageable fire, and expecting them to just overcome a fear response because the fire hasn’t burned you personally.
My most optimistic take on all this is that at least it’s an innoculative response. These LLMs are all a very poor fit for the tasks that are being demanded of them but it’s at least shown us what an effort to implement AI is going to look like. The effects that capitalism will have on its development over that of purely scientific research. Who is going to embrace it and why, and how they intend to use it.
Inwardly I ask myself what it is I think I would even want out of AI at this point and it’s honestly very little. Generative and general AIs even in their theoretical form do not address any of the actual problems I have in my day to day life. I cannot even fit an ideal version into my worldview and maybe that’s a lack of imagination on my part, but having grown up reading decades of sci-fi, I don’t believe so.
When something truly new and transformative is invented, we will know. The inevitability will not need to be explained to us.
It was a good idea to harness fire, though, right? E: Nevermind, I re-read your comment and you basically say that in the first sentence.
I’m not saying that the AI is bad in and of itself. I’m just saying that essentially you can’t blame to people of Japan for not like nukes after we nuked them twice (the perhaps most devastating use of harnessed fire, in my probably not very good analogy).
If we want to make something good from AI, continuing down this path isn’t the way after it’s actively harmed so many people. Doesn’t mean Nuclear power plants aren’t a good idea. Or something. I don’t even know anymore. This analogy has gotten so far away from me.
I didn’t fully grok how tone deaf I was being though.
It’s nice to see grok being used in the Heinlein sense and not the Musk sense. The article tracks with my experience, anyway. People who use AI how they choose are generally seeing a return. People who are forced to use it to do things it can’t do… hate it.
Yes we do!
