3 ms·

We should actively encourage fluidity in purpose, too much rigidity or militant clinging to ideas is insecurity or attempts at absolving personal responsibility

We should actively encourage fluidity in purpose, too much rigidity or militant clinging to ideas is insecurity or attempts at absolving personal responsibility. Resilience and strength in our civilisation comes from confidence in our competence, not sanctifying patterns so we don’t have to think. We need to encourage and support fluidity, domain knowledge is commoditised, the future is fluid composition.

danielbln 1y ago
Absolutely, I agree with that.
asciimov 1y ago
Great, tell that to someone who spent years honing their skills that it's too bad the rug was pulled out from beneath you, time to start over from the bottom again. Maybe there would be merit to this notion if society provided the necessary safety net for this person to start over.
- malux85 1y ago
  Agreed, I think there should be much more safety net for people to start over and be more fluid, I definitly think the weird "Full time employed or homeless" thing has to change
- danielbln 1y ago
  "Protect the person, not the job" is what we should be aiming for. I don't think we will, but we should.
adamc 1y ago
People come with all sorts of preferences. Telling people who love mastery that they have to be "fluid" isn't going to lead to happy outcomes.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
haswell 1y ago
> We should actively encourage fluidity in purpose I don't think we should assume most people are capable of what you describe. Assigning "should" to this assumes what you're describing is psychologically tenable across a large population. > too much rigidity or militant clinging to ideas is insecurity or attempts at absolving personal responsibility. Or maybe some people have a singular focus in life and that's ok. And maybe we should be talking about the responsibility of the companies exploiting everyone's content to create these models, or the responsibility of government to provide relief and transition planning for people impacted, etc. To frame this as a personal responsibility issue seems fairly disconnected from the reality that most people face. For most people, AI is something that is happening to them, not something they are responsible for. And to whatever extent we each do have personal responsibility for our careers, this does not negate the incoming harms currently unfolding.
- malux85 1y ago
  “Some people have a singular purpose in life and that’s OK” Strong disagree, that’s not OK, it’s fragile
  - haswell 1y ago
    Much of society is fragile. The point is that we need to approach this from the perspective of what is, not from what we wish things could be.

danielbln 1y ago

Absolutely, I agree with that.

asciimov 1y ago

Great, tell that to someone who spent years honing their skills that it's too bad the rug was pulled out from beneath you, time to start over from the bottom again. Maybe there would be merit to this notion if society provided the necessary safety net for this person to start over.

malux85 1y ago
Agreed, I think there should be much more safety net for people to start over and be more fluid, I definitly think the weird "Full time employed or homeless" thing has to change
danielbln 1y ago
"Protect the person, not the job" is what we should be aiming for. I don't think we will, but we should.

adamc 1y ago

People come with all sorts of preferences. Telling people who love mastery that they have to be "fluid" isn't going to lead to happy outcomes.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

haswell 1y ago

> We should actively encourage fluidity in purpose I don't think we should assume most people are capable of what you describe. Assigning "should" to this assumes what you're describing is psychologically tenable across a large population. > too much rigidity or militant clinging to ideas is insecurity or attempts at absolving personal responsibility. Or maybe some people have a singular focus in life and that's ok. And maybe we should be talking about the responsibility of the companies exploiting everyone's content to create these models, or the responsibility of government to provide relief and transition planning for people impacted, etc. To frame this as a personal responsibility issue seems fairly disconnected from the reality that most people face. For most people, AI is something that is happening to them, not something they are responsible for. And to whatever extent we each do have personal responsibility for our careers, this does not negate the incoming harms currently unfolding.

malux85 1y ago
“Some people have a singular purpose in life and that’s OK” Strong disagree, that’s not OK, it’s fragile
- haswell 1y ago
  Much of society is fragile. The point is that we need to approach this from the perspective of what is, not from what we wish things could be.