3 ms·
> We don't want the "always copy paste" scenario surely. We want the model to guide people towards becoming stronger engineers, not weaker ones. I don't think
by lucideer 3y ago
> We don't want the "always copy paste" scenario surely. We want the model to guide people towards becoming stronger engineers, not weaker ones.
I don't think that these kind of safety-rails help or work toward this model your suggesting (which is a great & worthy model), but I'm far more pessimistic about the feasibility of such a model - it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the "always copy paste" scenario is the central default whether we like it or not, in which case I do think the safety rails have a very significant net benefit.
On the more optimistic side, while I think AI will always serve a primarily "just do it for me I don't want to think" use-case, I also think people deeply want to & always will learn (just not via AI). So I don't personally see either AI nor any safety rails around it ever impacting that significantly.
- cnity 3y agoI can't say I disagree with anything here, it is well reasoned. I do have a knee-jerk reaction when I see any outright refusal to provide known information. I see this kind of thing as a sort of war of attrition, whereby 10 years down the line the pool of knowledgeable engineers on the topics that are banned by those-that-be dwindles to nearly nothing, and the concentration of them moves to the organisations that can begin to gatekeep the knowledge.
- freedomben 3y agoI tend to agree. As time moves on, the good books and stuff will stop being written and will slowly get very outdated as information is reorganized. When that happens, AI may be the only way for many people to learn some information.