4 ms·
> That being said, AGI is not a necessary requirement for AI to be totally world-changing. Depends on how you define "world changing" I guess, but this world a
by rstuart4133 1y ago
> That being said, AGI is not a necessary requirement for AI to be totally world-changing.
Depends on how you define "world changing" I guess, but this world already looks different to the pre-LLM world to me.
Me asking LLM's things instead of consulting the output from other humans now takes up a significant fraction of my day. I don't google near as often, I don't trust any image or video I see as swathes of the creative professions have been replaced by output from LLM's.
It's funny, that final thing is the last thing I would have predicted. I always believed the one thing a machine could not match was human creativity, because the output of machines was always precise, repetitive and reliable. Then LLM's come along, randomly generating every token. Their primary weakness is they neither precise or reliable, but they can turn out an unending stream of unique output.
- Ferrus91 1y agoI mean I also hear the same argument all the time about the "human touch" and interpersonal abilities etc. Which is apparently why managers and sales are safe from AI. But the more I see LLMs the more I realise that if it is good at one thing it is convincing other people and manipulating them. There have been multiple studies on this. People seem to have a innate prejudice and against nerds and programmers - coupled with envy at the high salaries - which is why they seem to have latched on to this idea it is mainly to replace them (and maybe data input people) as 'routine cognitive work' - but this slightly political obsession with a certain class of worker seems to be ignoring many of the things AI is actually good at.