3 ms·
Side/meta-question: Do you all think that GPT and such will see a pattern of usefulness starting with: 1) blatantly wrong but helping to train/give examples t
by supernova87a 4y ago
Side/meta-question:
Do you all think that GPT and such will see a pattern of usefulness starting with:
1) blatantly wrong but helping to train/give examples to the most rudimentary and beginning stages of people learning a task? (since that's what it's doing at the same time?) I.e. replacing low-skilled intro training, or more charitably, helping to make it possible for far more people to learn something with assistance?
And then moving up the sophistication level to where it's, say:
2) "ok, I can tell this is not blatantly wrong, and might even be plausible from a medium skilled practitioner or analyst" and I can use this with some error checking.
to
3) even more capable / actually worrisome?
Or, does it occupy a different "sphere" of usefulness / purpose?
- hn_user2 4y agoMeta-Meta question: Why is "actually worrisome" part of "more capable"? If worrisome is because of job prospects for an existing career, my advice is to embrace new tech, not fear it. Just keeping up with things even if you don't use it right away is usually enough to stay relevant. Things don't really evolve that quickly, and so as long as you don't resist change completely things usually work out. Heck even if you hate change, and don't want to change at all, there will be plenty of old legacy companies with the old fashioned manual reports needing a person in a chair to type out the SQL to make them. Just like there are still (good paying) jobs for those COBOL experts today.
- supernova87a 4y agoRight, well I just use it as a phrase, to shorthand mean, "wow, really pay attention to as changing how we work and behave".