4 ms·
Surprisingly, this isn't clickbait. It's more that it's a qualitative rather than quantitative analysis. It's more of a cultural and psychological impact piece.
by dudeinhawaii 1y ago
Surprisingly, this isn't clickbait. It's more that it's a qualitative rather than quantitative analysis. It's more of a cultural and psychological impact piece. I expected something basically dismissing AI as a mass-delusion.
I can't say the author is _wrong_ in their chosen examples like "re-animating a dead kid to interview an AI version of them in the news" That's flat out bizarre. The AGI hype, the whole "every job will be displaced" moving bar.
I say this as an AI maximalist. Progress <> permission. We do need more accuracy, safety, and the players to disclose synthetic content.
The real danger is rebuilding social institutions around "mid" models and only later noticing we've gone wrong -- not Skynet -- but information quality, consent, energy, labor, etc.
- Mallowram 1y agoWords aren't specific, they're arbitrary. Any model using the arbitrary to stand in for action or specifics will always be mid. Words are in this way gibberish. Only actions are real. That's the achilles heel Warzel can't see, he's a wordsmith. No word is ever accurate/specific, it's only a metaphor for the event. No software can ever resolve metaphors to real, irreducible events. This had to be taught day one in LLM/NLP/ML for the field to be real. It wasn't the field is false.