3 ms·
This feels so much like 90s Wikipedia criticism. There are lousy and lazy ways to use LLMs. There are also enlightening and powerful ways. Find someone curious
by scosman 11mo ago
This feels so much like 90s Wikipedia criticism.
There are lousy and lazy ways to use LLMs. There are also enlightening and powerful ways. Find someone curious who will explore them. Don't date people who habitually fight anything new.
- giraffe_lady 11mo ago"Habitually fighting anything new" is nonpolitical conservatism. It's not my stance but it's a pretty valid one, long recognized. There is social value in having people and groups who reject all changes regardless of their apparent merit or sophistication. You can't trick or swindle them, they can't be fooled or persuaded. It provides a counter to the incentives pushing us to change too fast, or without understanding enough of the possible consequences of broad social/technological changes. I think a lot of the problems we have now is an unbalance on this, an insufficiently strong conservative force. "Conservative" political movements stopped filling this role a couple generations ago in favor of a sort of radical revanchism. They want to change everything too, just in a different way. People who fight every change will always lose. But they are still valuable to us.
- legitster 11mo agoTo put another way, contrarianism is a survival adaptation for humans. There are some options that are clearly 99% superior than other options. But that 1% happens enough to create an extinction event for humanity if everyone relies on it. People are going to oppose good ideas from their very core for no discernable rhyme or reason. But at the same time, it's not necessarily irrational - our genetics are hardcoded to hedge collectively in weird ways.
- InexSquirrel 11mo agoHonestly I don't think that's a valid stance to have ("habitually fighting anything new", not your view), to reject anything new entirely based on habit or principle. It means you don't have a reason for rejecting the thing in question. Just crossing your arms with scowl and pretending things were better in years of yore. Having a reason why you think the thing is bad, and should not be accepted is the better position to have.
- esfandia 11mo agoYeah, it's a case of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of good". The conservative stance is happy with the status quo. The progressive stance isn't. We probably need a bit of both. Finding the right balance being key.
- scosman 11mo ago> People who fight every change will always lose. But they are still valuable to us. Sure. But date the intellectually curious. They are way more fun.
- satisfice 11mo agoDon’t date people who abandon their own agency.
- sodality2 11mo agoWeird how you let this news story pop up on your screen so indolently, instead of fetching your newspaper from the front porch. You’re abandoning your agency! /s I don’t mean to say that we should outsource our thoughts to LLMs. In this case it’s clear that even if they had just searched “places for xyz” on maps, it would’ve been just as bad - what they wanted was effort, shopping around + research with pros, cons, and discussions, not just “not an LLM”. Valid criticism!
- JohnFen 11mo ago> Don't date people who habitually fight anything new. Also, avoid dating people who assume that if you want to avoid the influence of genAI you "habitually fight anything new".
- palmotea 11mo ago> This feels so much like 90s Wikipedia criticism. Wikipedia didn't start until 2001. There was no 90s Wikipedia criticism. It didn't exist.
- scosman 11mo agoAnd I hate it for that!