3 ms·
> Large Language Models (AKA "spicy autocomplete") > This "AI debate" is pretty stupid, proceeding as it does from the foregone conclusion that adding compute
by airstrike 3y ago
> Large Language Models (AKA "spicy autocomplete")
> This "AI debate" is pretty stupid, proceeding as it does from the foregone conclusion that adding compute power and data to the next-word-predictor program will eventually create a conscious being, which will then inevitably become a superbeing. This is a proposition akin to the idea that if we keep breeding faster and faster horses, we'll get a locomotive
Part of me thinks I used to be fine with the tone of TFA, but nowadays I have neither the time nor the patience to suffer through this, even if I'm not an "accelerationist" in the slightest.
I'm just able to do my own thinking, thank you very much—you don't need to force-feed me your opinion with half-baked analogies, snarky "aka"s and name-calling.
This whole article boils down to "two sides are arguing in some debate I KNOW is irrelevant because I'm on the side of justice, fairness and all that is good, and everyone else is evil".
Hard pass. I'll debate whatever I want.
- homefree 3y agoAdd to that people that communicate this way seem disproportionately more likely to be wrong too (and overconfident in their wrongness).
- tayo42 3y agoIt's a style that seems common with people who spend to much time on Twitter. Which it looks like he is one. I was wondering the other day how much of ai is driven by over excited people on Twitter. If it is in a significant one, it was thinking there's probably a negative impact becasue of the type of content that gets promoted on Twitter
- johnfn 3y agoI had the exact same reaction when I read this. A lot of intelligent people have thought about these issues. I'm willing to grant that there is some probability that you've understood their problems better than they have[1], but when you write it like that, it seems quite obvious to me that you have not had any such insight. In order to have such an insight you would have to have the curiosity to fully understand the problem space; claiming everyone on both sides is a moron exempts you of any such curiosity. [1]: After all, a lot of smart people thought about crypto.
- Minor49er 3y agoYour reaction to Doctorow's writing is similar to Doctorow's reaction to the so-called AI debate
- airstrike 3y agoI thought about that as I wrote my comment, but you still have to subtract the snark and holier-than-thou attitude to get to where I am. And then again I'm commenting on HN about "TFA", not writing about Cory Doctorow's writing on a blog saying he should stop writing.
- Minor49er 3y agoI figured his disgusted and over-the-top demeanor was a way to elbow through the much more common points of view that he's criticizing. If the proponents of the AI debate were in a room discussing things with each other, it would be like him barging in and just yelling loudly so that people hear him. But yelling, like snark, is usually off-putting, despite drawing attention. At least that's how I see it That said, I'm not meaning to imply that your initial response was either loud or snarky. Rather, you and Doctorow are both clearly annoyed by what you've been reading
- hakdbha 3y ago[dead]
- 303uru 3y ago> Large Language Models (AKA "spicy autocomplete") Yup, really fucking tired of this. I'm somewhere in the middle of this whole debate, but it's a debate worth having. And I think the people belittling AI to autocomplete are likely putting a little too much magical thinking into their own consciousness.
- istjohn 3y agoI've never found Doctorow insightful--even his fiction. I don't know what people see in him.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]