3 ms·
LLMs are here, they are staying, we either learn to live with them or accept it's the end of our time. There is no putting LLMs back in the box. Whoever does no
by flanked-evergl 2y ago
LLMs are here, they are staying, we either learn to live with them or accept it's the end of our time. There is no putting LLMs back in the box. Whoever does not use them will become irrelevant. Societal progress is not one way, but technological progress is — and there is a good reason for that; the universe is biased towards processes that are better at increasing entropy, if we aren't that, we will be replaced.
It may suck, but facts are facts. Dealing with them is better than pretending they don't exist.
- kelseyfrog 2y agoNo one is asking for technology to be un-invented. We're asking for the societal consequences of technology to be addressed. Technology can be disruptive, but "just deal with the disruption," is not a viable response. It breads resentment. It favors populism. It says, "sorry, but your problems are not worth fixing."
- flanked-evergl 2y agoThis article is not about that, it's about how a technology supposedly makes people worse at something, when in reality the technology transforms the activity. It's about as sensible as modern input methods make people worse at programming. If humans can no longer be useful at some ancient, irrelevant practice because of a quantum leap in technology ... so what? To quote most historic person that has ever and will ever live; what difference, at this point, does that make?
- marcellus23 2y ago> To quote most historic person that has ever and will ever live Hillary Clinton? Is this bait?
- kelseyfrog 2y agoBecause people being useful = people's livelihoods. When that equation changes en mass, and we respond with "things change, too bad," it is a social failure.