> 1. Entry level action: [...] (machines can do almost 100% of these tasks at this point) Haha, not even close. That's true if you take it in a very specific i

> 1. Entry level action: [...] (machines can do almost 100% of these tasks at this point) Haha, not even close. That's true if you take it in a very specific industrial bubble, where you do not _expect/instruct_ people to raise at others capacities, depending on the situation they face. Which often enough breaks/stops the whole process. > Most humans only act at the first level. Very suspicious classist take. That's different than to say that everyone acts at various levels, depending on the context. Some experts are not capable of doing the most basic of cooking or house cleaning, for instance. > We’re already well past the point that ChatGPT is a more coherent “thinker” than all but the top 1% of all humans. [needs citation]. Especially since the tech leaders in the AI industry seem unable to not reduce the world to a small digital box. They would definitely grow up their thinking with some philosophy and humanities. > So what is good enough? The question is not "what is good enough?", it's "what/who is this good for?". That's the basic question for any tech or tool you design/build/have. So far, but for being a compelling and funny toy, whether in text, image, video, sound generation/manipulation, I'm not seeing real world use-cases where I would trust/relate to it more than to something that a real person had done by themselves. Because on one hand, it's not deterministic. And on the other, it's not accountable.