4 ms·
How is this any different from using other technology, e.g. a calculator or a power tool? Or a manager and the output of their ICs? Obviously the scope of what
by jahsome 4y ago
How is this any different from using other technology, e.g. a calculator or a power tool? Or a manager and the output of their ICs?
Obviously the scope of what's possible is different but _any_ craftsman using _any_ tool will only be as good as what they verify themselves.
- lucisferre 4y agoA calculator or even most power tools have very predictable outputs for a given input. GPT does not.
- mywittyname 4y agoI think this is the point. These tools aren't replacements for knowledge and experience (which is the narrative that is constantly pushed), they bionic enhancements.
- svachalek 4y agoLook at the people who have been killed by Teslas because they were playing video games or hanky panky in the back seat. People don't do that with a gas pedal or even cruise control because it will go wrong very quickly and we know it. With subhuman but roughly functional self-driving, we instinctively see that our attention is wasted 99% of the time. It's hard to make people pay attention 100% of the time because it's needed 1% of the time.
- jahsome 4y agoPeople absolutely do that with cruise control, and gas pedal... Look at the people texting or drinking and driving non-self-driving vehicles. Adding AI to an inherently risky activity doesn't eliminate the risk. If you're saying stakes are too low when technology is involved (in this case ai) then where do you draw the line? It reminds me of anti seatbelt rhetoric or the same stuff skateboarders say about helmets.