4 ms·

The thesis is spot on with why I believe many skeptics remain skeptics: > To call AI a con isn’t to say that the technology is not remarkable, that it has no u

The thesis is spot on with why I believe many skeptics remain skeptics: > To call AI a con isn’t to say that the technology is not remarkable, that it has no use, or that it will not transform the world (perhaps for the better) in the right hands. It is to say that AI is not what its developers are selling it as: a new class of thinking—and, soon, feeling—machines. Of course some are skeptical these tools are useful at all. Others still don’t want to use them for moral reasons. But I’m inclined to believe the majority of the conversation is people talking past each other. The skeptics are skeptical of the way LLMs are being presented as AI. The non hype promoters find them really useful. Both can be correct. The tools are useful and the con is dangerous.

th0ma5 1y ago
A lot of the claims of usefulness evaporate when tested. The word useful has many meanings. Perhaps their only reliable use will be the rubber duck effect.
- squidbeak 1y ago
  Not for me they haven't.
  - th0ma5 1y ago
    Anecdotes unfortunately are not data :/
- diggan 1y ago
  > A lot of the claims of usefulness evaporate when tested In your personal experience? Because that's been my personal experience too, in lots of cases with LLMs. But I've also been surprised the other way, and overall it's been a net-positive for myself, but I've also spent a lot of time "practicing" getting prompts and tooling right. I could easily see how people give it try for 20-30 minutes, not getting the results they expected and give up, which yeah, you probably won't get any net-positive effects by that.
  - th0ma5 1y ago
    Anecdotes unfortunately are not data :/
timewizard 1y ago
> the majority of the conversation is people talking past each other. There's billions and billions of dollars invested here. This isn't a problem of social conversation. This is a problem of investor manipulation. This site is lousy with this. It pretends to be "Hacker News" but it's really "Corporate Monopolist News."

th0ma5 1y ago

A lot of the claims of usefulness evaporate when tested. The word useful has many meanings. Perhaps their only reliable use will be the rubber duck effect.

squidbeak 1y ago
Not for me they haven't.
- th0ma5 1y ago
  Anecdotes unfortunately are not data :/
diggan 1y ago
> A lot of the claims of usefulness evaporate when tested In your personal experience? Because that's been my personal experience too, in lots of cases with LLMs. But I've also been surprised the other way, and overall it's been a net-positive for myself, but I've also spent a lot of time "practicing" getting prompts and tooling right. I could easily see how people give it try for 20-30 minutes, not getting the results they expected and give up, which yeah, you probably won't get any net-positive effects by that.
- th0ma5 1y ago
  Anecdotes unfortunately are not data :/

timewizard 1y ago

> the majority of the conversation is people talking past each other. There's billions and billions of dollars invested here. This isn't a problem of social conversation. This is a problem of investor manipulation. This site is lousy with this. It pretends to be "Hacker News" but it's really "Corporate Monopolist News."