3 ms·

The equivalency breaks down quickly, and even when it's appropriate, it doesn't paint a rosy picture of what interacting with ai will be. If using an app goes

The equivalency breaks down quickly, and even when it's appropriate, it doesn't paint a rosy picture of what interacting with ai will be. If using an app goes from the modern equivalent of mindless clicking (which has taken billions of dollars to get there, but we've all seen babies use iPads) to the equivalent of personally training and directing an animal, we're going to experience a massive degredation of quality in user experience because of it. And re-training these models is magnitudes harder than redesigning a predictable UX around user data. Not to mention people are not promising these models as horses pulling a carriage or walking with a man on top but as doctors and lawyers and psychiatrists and engineers and drone operators.

sdenton4 3y ago
Sadly, deterministic ux code is unable to do everything. So typically we hire people to do the things computers can't do on their own. Those people have a user interface (speech and text), and a tendency to not perfectly execute your instructions, because the prescribed task is often under specified. Likewise, humans have used animals to extend their capabilities for millennia, and, like other people, animals have their own sets of capabilities, needs, and shortcomings. What they have in common, and I think ai will be like this as well, is that to get stuff done well you need to understand the capabilities and strengths of the mind you are working with. Working with minds requires some level of relationship with those minds. If you have use cases where a CRUD approach is plenty, then you don't need a mind in the implementation, and that's totally fine! Let a mess of JavaScript do what a mess of JavaScript is good at. (though you'll certainly need a mind to implement it). But we already work with minds that are experts - and smarter and more experienced than we are - in medicine, law, and so on. We are used to knowing that good results in these areas are built on building a bridge with another mind. I'm curious why you would expect that we would ever want to replace, say, a psychiatrist with a button press? The expressivity possible with deterministic software is simply insufficient to the complexity of the problem space.

sdenton4 3y ago

Sadly, deterministic ux code is unable to do everything. So typically we hire people to do the things computers can't do on their own. Those people have a user interface (speech and text), and a tendency to not perfectly execute your instructions, because the prescribed task is often under specified. Likewise, humans have used animals to extend their capabilities for millennia, and, like other people, animals have their own sets of capabilities, needs, and shortcomings. What they have in common, and I think ai will be like this as well, is that to get stuff done well you need to understand the capabilities and strengths of the mind you are working with. Working with minds requires some level of relationship with those minds. If you have use cases where a CRUD approach is plenty, then you don't need a mind in the implementation, and that's totally fine! Let a mess of JavaScript do what a mess of JavaScript is good at. (though you'll certainly need a mind to implement it). But we already work with minds that are experts - and smarter and more experienced than we are - in medicine, law, and so on. We are used to knowing that good results in these areas are built on building a bridge with another mind. I'm curious why you would expect that we would ever want to replace, say, a psychiatrist with a button press? The expressivity possible with deterministic software is simply insufficient to the complexity of the problem space.