5 ms·

I have no special love for this guy as he said some stuff that pissed me off in the past, but what is your specific argument against this post right here? > Ho

I have no special love for this guy as he said some stuff that pissed me off in the past, but what is your specific argument against this post right here? > Hospital services? AI is clearly going to be involved, at least in things like radiology This is very far from the main point: accuracy of the claim that AI will wipe out (in this case health-related) jobs (and/or make health-related services cheaper). "involved" here is so vague as to be meaningless. > clearly AI is going to open up educational opportunities in a way that brings the costs way down It may be crystal clear to you that AI will bring the cost of popular education down, but it is not clear to me at all, and adding "clearly" and "obviously" to some future claim does not make it any more convincing. He's trying to work with existing trends and data, you are saying "clearly the trend will reverse just because". I realize the original post was written by somebody who has a reputation for saying one thing and doing something completely different, etc. etc.

idopmstuff 4y ago
> This is very far from the main point: accuracy of the claim that AI will wipe out (in this case health-related) jobs (and/or make health-related services cheaper). "involved" here is so vague as to be meaningless. Let me rephrase: AI is better at human beings at the sort of pattern-matching work that radiology entails, so the majority of radiologists will be unemployed (I'll say in 20 years, if you want to check back down the line a bit and see how I did). This will both improve patient outcomes (fewer mistakes) and lower costs. Some radiologists will remain in supervisory/research/needing to have a human to rubber stamp type roles. > It may be crystal clear to you that AI will bring the cost of popular education down, but it is not clear to me at all, and adding "clearly" and "obviously" to some future claim does not make it any more convincing. He's trying to work with existing trends and data, you are saying "clearly the trend will reverse just because". I'm not saying anything "just because." I'm saying that technological changes in the form of AI will cause the trend to change, as technological changes have caused numerous economic upheavals. Nonetheless, I will be more specific - AI will give everyone a completely knowledgeable, fully personalized tutor. It will be able to very specifically identify places where a student is having difficulty and create custom exercises that are tailored to not only the subject, but also the student's optimal methods of learning. It will be able to custom tailor curriculum to fit a student's specific knowledge and career goals. The relative inefficiency of the large-scale lecture model of higher education will be so significant that the value it'll retain will just lie in the brand cache of the institute of higher learning (effectively, you passed the Stanford admissions AI's muster, so you're smart).
- yourapostasy 4y ago
  > ...AI will give everyone a completely knowledgeable, fully personalized tutor. I want to see a GPT-based implementation of A Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer-like open world that constantly teaches. We have a lot of the precursors needed to attempt it and give it a shot.
  - weard_beard 4y ago
    This is my life long dream. To get to work on gen1 of something like this. In place of paid mechanical Turk tutors I want to create an epistemological engine consisting of 3 main things: an inventory system of composable pieces of collected knowledge about the game world, a set of story writing design tools to create vignettes and connect pieces of narrative… a kind of narrative procedural generation system, and finally a set of original ui elements to showcase how the “knowbits” can be used to interact with the games narrative. AI will be used for character actors.
- john_the_writer 4y ago
  I find any time someone uses the word obviously they're either trying to force an opinion, or insulting you. If it is obvious to all, then the word is meant to point out how stupid the listener is. If it's not obvious to all then the speaker is just trying to shut down a conversation. Clearly I'm right about this. It's obvious.
  - quijoteuniv 4y ago
    That is common sense and standard practice
- twelve40 4y ago
  Got it. According to BLS, there are 29,530 radiologists out of 20,736,000 total employed in healthcare in the US. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291224.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291224.htm But, i get the gist of it, we can probably find many more niches that might suffer. My take on the bigger point is, I wouldn't be so sure about the economy-wide apocalypse. I agree with what he said about the outsourcing scare of 2000's, and if pure cost+customization of education, for example, were an issue, you could conceivably hire a very good personal tutor (professor even) from a low-COL English speaking country, even like 15 years ago, or build yourself your own full custom curriculum for free from MIT videos and plentiful other information that has been around forever, mostly for free. Yet, colleges haven't been abandoned, people are taking on more and more debt every year just to be a part of that system. This is probably not technological in nature. Same for healthcare, there are so much money (and technology) getting poured into that but the system keeps getting more expensive and not too much more efficient, will probably start regressing at some point. My personal point of curiosity was that autonomous driving, which 10 years ago was promised to have fully arrived 5 years ago, among other things would have turned 2,000,000 not-very-retrainable-in-such-numbers truck drivers in the US into basically near-homeless people. Well, it hasn't really happened: > from 2020 you will become a permanent backseat driver https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/13/self-driving-cars-bmw-google-2020-driving https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/13/self-driv... We've been, too, promised that AI will revolutionize healthcare, e.g. that Watson will replace your doctor (at least, according to the IBM and friends' pitches). Watson turned out to be less than a rounding error in the healthcare equation (i think they got rid of parts of it by now). The point being, to me it's not very clear cut, and some of what MA pointed out seems really to be caused not by inferior pre-ChatGPT technology but for more societal/economical reasons and incentives (perverse or not).
LeonB 4y ago
When the television first arrived any TV optimist would’ve said: “clearly TV is going to open up educational opportunities in a way that brings the costs way down” … and that is exactly what happened. Since 1960 every kid in the world “clearly” gets the absolute best education imaginable thanks to the economy of scale afforded by TV broadcasting. It’s basic economics. Oh wait.
- pythonaut_16 4y ago
  And yet the proliferation of screens capable of displaying information and graphics has been an absolute boon to education.
  - LeonB 4y ago
    I’m not denying it, but the cost of educating 1 child - has that fallen or risen?
    - staunton 4y ago
      The cost of educating 1 child was never lower than when they were taught by their parents how to work the fields while doing said work. Education costs tell us very little about both quality and efficiency of education.
    - naveen99 4y ago
      Most of that is just babysitting / baby jailing cost.
    - theGnuMe 4y ago
      Well the thing with education is that there is always more to learn since knowledge keeps increasing. So arguably what you want to measure is productivity. Has television, say PBS increased educational productivity. I would say yes. I remember watching Nova shows in science class and so forth. So yes TV has reduced costs. Books also increased productivity in the same way. Would remote learning reduce costs? Yes. Will AI systems reduce cost, yes.

idopmstuff 4y ago

> This is very far from the main point: accuracy of the claim that AI will wipe out (in this case health-related) jobs (and/or make health-related services cheaper). "involved" here is so vague as to be meaningless. Let me rephrase: AI is better at human beings at the sort of pattern-matching work that radiology entails, so the majority of radiologists will be unemployed (I'll say in 20 years, if you want to check back down the line a bit and see how I did). This will both improve patient outcomes (fewer mistakes) and lower costs. Some radiologists will remain in supervisory/research/needing to have a human to rubber stamp type roles. > It may be crystal clear to you that AI will bring the cost of popular education down, but it is not clear to me at all, and adding "clearly" and "obviously" to some future claim does not make it any more convincing. He's trying to work with existing trends and data, you are saying "clearly the trend will reverse just because". I'm not saying anything "just because." I'm saying that technological changes in the form of AI will cause the trend to change, as technological changes have caused numerous economic upheavals. Nonetheless, I will be more specific - AI will give everyone a completely knowledgeable, fully personalized tutor. It will be able to very specifically identify places where a student is having difficulty and create custom exercises that are tailored to not only the subject, but also the student's optimal methods of learning. It will be able to custom tailor curriculum to fit a student's specific knowledge and career goals. The relative inefficiency of the large-scale lecture model of higher education will be so significant that the value it'll retain will just lie in the brand cache of the institute of higher learning (effectively, you passed the Stanford admissions AI's muster, so you're smart).

yourapostasy 4y ago
> ...AI will give everyone a completely knowledgeable, fully personalized tutor. I want to see a GPT-based implementation of A Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer-like open world that constantly teaches. We have a lot of the precursors needed to attempt it and give it a shot.
- weard_beard 4y ago
  This is my life long dream. To get to work on gen1 of something like this. In place of paid mechanical Turk tutors I want to create an epistemological engine consisting of 3 main things: an inventory system of composable pieces of collected knowledge about the game world, a set of story writing design tools to create vignettes and connect pieces of narrative… a kind of narrative procedural generation system, and finally a set of original ui elements to showcase how the “knowbits” can be used to interact with the games narrative. AI will be used for character actors.
john_the_writer 4y ago
I find any time someone uses the word obviously they're either trying to force an opinion, or insulting you. If it is obvious to all, then the word is meant to point out how stupid the listener is. If it's not obvious to all then the speaker is just trying to shut down a conversation. Clearly I'm right about this. It's obvious.
- quijoteuniv 4y ago
  That is common sense and standard practice
twelve40 4y ago
Got it. According to BLS, there are 29,530 radiologists out of 20,736,000 total employed in healthcare in the US. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291224.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291224.htm But, i get the gist of it, we can probably find many more niches that might suffer. My take on the bigger point is, I wouldn't be so sure about the economy-wide apocalypse. I agree with what he said about the outsourcing scare of 2000's, and if pure cost+customization of education, for example, were an issue, you could conceivably hire a very good personal tutor (professor even) from a low-COL English speaking country, even like 15 years ago, or build yourself your own full custom curriculum for free from MIT videos and plentiful other information that has been around forever, mostly for free. Yet, colleges haven't been abandoned, people are taking on more and more debt every year just to be a part of that system. This is probably not technological in nature. Same for healthcare, there are so much money (and technology) getting poured into that but the system keeps getting more expensive and not too much more efficient, will probably start regressing at some point. My personal point of curiosity was that autonomous driving, which 10 years ago was promised to have fully arrived 5 years ago, among other things would have turned 2,000,000 not-very-retrainable-in-such-numbers truck drivers in the US into basically near-homeless people. Well, it hasn't really happened: > from 2020 you will become a permanent backseat driver https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/13/self-driving-cars-bmw-google-2020-driving https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/13/self-driv... We've been, too, promised that AI will revolutionize healthcare, e.g. that Watson will replace your doctor (at least, according to the IBM and friends' pitches). Watson turned out to be less than a rounding error in the healthcare equation (i think they got rid of parts of it by now). The point being, to me it's not very clear cut, and some of what MA pointed out seems really to be caused not by inferior pre-ChatGPT technology but for more societal/economical reasons and incentives (perverse or not).

LeonB 4y ago

When the television first arrived any TV optimist would’ve said: “clearly TV is going to open up educational opportunities in a way that brings the costs way down” … and that is exactly what happened. Since 1960 every kid in the world “clearly” gets the absolute best education imaginable thanks to the economy of scale afforded by TV broadcasting. It’s basic economics. Oh wait.

pythonaut_16 4y ago
And yet the proliferation of screens capable of displaying information and graphics has been an absolute boon to education.
- LeonB 4y ago
  I’m not denying it, but the cost of educating 1 child - has that fallen or risen?
  - staunton 4y ago
    The cost of educating 1 child was never lower than when they were taught by their parents how to work the fields while doing said work. Education costs tell us very little about both quality and efficiency of education.
  - naveen99 4y ago
    Most of that is just babysitting / baby jailing cost.
  - theGnuMe 4y ago
    Well the thing with education is that there is always more to learn since knowledge keeps increasing. So arguably what you want to measure is productivity. Has television, say PBS increased educational productivity. I would say yes. I remember watching Nova shows in science class and so forth. So yes TV has reduced costs. Books also increased productivity in the same way. Would remote learning reduce costs? Yes. Will AI systems reduce cost, yes.