3 ms·

To ruin your analogy remix further it was actually bayonets affixed to muskets that defeated Little Bonnie Prince's army. Again confident compensation won the d

To ruin your analogy remix further it was actually bayonets affixed to muskets that defeated Little Bonnie Prince's army. Again confident compensation won the day. Lies by omission are worth railing against even if the first guess at those omissions are wildly wrong, the important thing is you've started the refinement process instead of letting the implied falsehood fester and mix with other choices you might make. The hazard of LLMs is only for people who expect to be babied. The people who want no one else but the elite knowledge experts using LLMs are just chuffed at their own trivia recall abilities and perhaps a little afraid of being easily shown up after dedicating so much effort to the legacy way.

advael 2y ago
lol you really are one of these AI cultists huh? Do I get to hear "it's a godsend for the untalented" for the 28043rd time? Your proposed model for adoption doesn't "show up the elites", it destroys the ability of anyone who doesn't already have elite-level epistemic integrity checking skills to ground themselves in reality, and honestly may well over time subvert even decent epistemics via automation blindness. Using new tools is something that people should absolutely do, but using them stupidly for the sake of using them creates a small-to-modest momentary edge for an infinitessimal fraction of this especially reckless class of early adopters who luck out while most of them just serve as guinea pigs as the world figures out what the things are actually good for and irons out the rough edges. Regulating the way you ingest new information such that you can tell fact from fiction isn't "trivia recall", it's a way to retain a semblance of soundness of mind. It's readily apparent from the increasingly unhinged landscape of conspiracy theories that it is in fact not better to wildly guess at gaps in your knowledge if those guesses have a chance of becoming sticky, and human brains are a lot better at filling in gaps than unfilling them. You're not making a good case for not grounding usage of these tools in a realistic understanding of what they're good at - even setting aside the nominative determinism that's becoming increasingly apparent in your replies

advael 2y ago

lol you really are one of these AI cultists huh? Do I get to hear "it's a godsend for the untalented" for the 28043rd time? Your proposed model for adoption doesn't "show up the elites", it destroys the ability of anyone who doesn't already have elite-level epistemic integrity checking skills to ground themselves in reality, and honestly may well over time subvert even decent epistemics via automation blindness. Using new tools is something that people should absolutely do, but using them stupidly for the sake of using them creates a small-to-modest momentary edge for an infinitessimal fraction of this especially reckless class of early adopters who luck out while most of them just serve as guinea pigs as the world figures out what the things are actually good for and irons out the rough edges. Regulating the way you ingest new information such that you can tell fact from fiction isn't "trivia recall", it's a way to retain a semblance of soundness of mind. It's readily apparent from the increasingly unhinged landscape of conspiracy theories that it is in fact not better to wildly guess at gaps in your knowledge if those guesses have a chance of becoming sticky, and human brains are a lot better at filling in gaps than unfilling them. You're not making a good case for not grounding usage of these tools in a realistic understanding of what they're good at - even setting aside the nominative determinism that's becoming increasingly apparent in your replies