7 ms·

Nobody buys into it. That's the problem. But you have to realize, Before AI was capable of doing something like NotebookLLM nobody bought into it. And they wer

Nobody buys into it. That's the problem. But you have to realize, Before AI was capable of doing something like NotebookLLM nobody bought into it. And they were wrong. They failed to extrapolate. Now that AI CAN do NotebookLLM, people hold on to the same sentiment. You guys were wrong.

airstrike 1y ago
Your argument is a fallacy in three immediate ways: 1. We're not all the same person, to be clear. 2. It's also not the same argument as before. It's not the same extrapolation. 3. And being right or wrong in the past has no bearing on current NotebookLM doesn't need new AI. It's tool use and context. Tool use is awesome, I've been saying that for ages. It's wrong to extrapolate we're seamlessly going to go from tool use to "AI replaces humans"
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  >1. We're not all the same person, to be clear. No. But you all run under the same label. This is common if you didn't know. For example a certain group of people with certain beliefs can be called republican or democrat or catholic. I didn't name the label explicitly. But you all are in that group. I thought it was obvious I wasn't talking about one person. I don't think you're so stupid as to actually think that so don't pretend you misinterpreted what I said. >2. It's also not the same argument as before. It's not the same extrapolation. Seems like the same argument to me, you thought LLMs were stochastic parrots and inherently and forever limited by it's very nature (a statement made with no proof). The extrapolation is the same since the dawn of AI: upwards. We may hit a wall, but nobody can know this for sure. >3. And being right or wrong in the past has no bearing on current It does. Past performance is a good predictor of current performance. It's also common sense, why else do we have resumes? You were wrong before, chances are... you'll be wrong again. >It's wrong to extrapolate we're seamlessly going to go from tool use to "AI replaces humans" You just make this statement without any supporting evidence? It's just wrong because you say so? This is my statement: How about the trendline points to an eventual future that remains an open possibility due to a trendline... versus your conclusion which is "it's wrong"

airstrike 1y ago

Your argument is a fallacy in three immediate ways: 1. We're not all the same person, to be clear. 2. It's also not the same argument as before. It's not the same extrapolation. 3. And being right or wrong in the past has no bearing on current NotebookLM doesn't need new AI. It's tool use and context. Tool use is awesome, I've been saying that for ages. It's wrong to extrapolate we're seamlessly going to go from tool use to "AI replaces humans"

ninetyninenine 1y ago
>1. We're not all the same person, to be clear. No. But you all run under the same label. This is common if you didn't know. For example a certain group of people with certain beliefs can be called republican or democrat or catholic. I didn't name the label explicitly. But you all are in that group. I thought it was obvious I wasn't talking about one person. I don't think you're so stupid as to actually think that so don't pretend you misinterpreted what I said. >2. It's also not the same argument as before. It's not the same extrapolation. Seems like the same argument to me, you thought LLMs were stochastic parrots and inherently and forever limited by it's very nature (a statement made with no proof). The extrapolation is the same since the dawn of AI: upwards. We may hit a wall, but nobody can know this for sure. >3. And being right or wrong in the past has no bearing on current It does. Past performance is a good predictor of current performance. It's also common sense, why else do we have resumes? You were wrong before, chances are... you'll be wrong again. >It's wrong to extrapolate we're seamlessly going to go from tool use to "AI replaces humans" You just make this statement without any supporting evidence? It's just wrong because you say so? This is my statement: How about the trendline points to an eventual future that remains an open possibility due to a trendline... versus your conclusion which is "it's wrong"