I think this is hilarious, because it's exactly the type of low effort response that tends to dominate general conversations about AI.
You are making the author's point.
I think there's a lot more nuance in
> "isn’t it cool how this can replace the work that you do? Eventually we won’t even need you and you can go get a hobby to spend the rest of your life."
than you'd like to admit, and some conversations that are worth having in earnest instead of simply resorting to trivial things like
> "Maybe the discourse sucks because the reality of it sucks?"
Maybe the reality of it doesn't suck?
In the same way that a reality where we have things like bulldozers, printing presses, looms, and a cotton gin doesn't actually suck, at the end of the day.
It absolutely sucked for some people, some of the time - and that's an important part of the conversation, but it's not the conversation "end of sentence".
> than you'd like to admit, and some conversations that are worth having in earnest instead of simply resorting to trivial things like
Sure the author wants to talk about technical specifics of Llms. Yet Llms enable a lot of people to avoid understanding even the technical points of it. That would disincentivize people from understanding enough to have discourse which the author considers valuable.
> In the same way that a reality where we have things like bulldozers, printing presses, looms, and a cotton gin doesn't actually suck, at the end of the day.
I really don’t care about the grand scheme of things type responses to criticism of Llms. But for the sake of argument why should I care about discussing Llms and their technical aspects if in the grand scheme of things we’re all to eventually die?
It is the end of the sentence because most people can’t imagine what comes next besides not having a job. It’s not that they won’t be fine if a super AI takes over tomorrow, it’s that is literally the limit of their concerns today is making money for themselves.
It might be different if Llms actually made the users richer but it doesn’t it makes the corporations richer.
> But for the sake of argument why should I care about discussing Llms and their technical aspects if in the grand scheme of things we’re all to eventually die?
Why do anything, then? This is the laziest possible retort I can imagine.
> In the same way that a reality where we have things like bulldozers, printing presses, looms, and a cotton gin doesn't actually suck, at the end of the day.
So you’re allowed that type of rhetoric, but when I use it, it’s lazy.
My point has been that it sucks, now. Right now, it’s hysterical on both sides of the conversation. So yes it sucks. In the grand scheme of things it may not suck or it could get even worse. Again one side of the conversation is choosing to promote only one of those ideas. Even though there is no evidence we will end up in a utopia from it. In fact there’s a lot of evidence to the contrary. So yes the conversation sucks. The reality right now sucks.
Yes, because - to be blunt - yours is so much lazier.
I picked machines that were undeniably controversial at the time they were introduced, because they did all the things you're claiming to be upset about here: They put people out of work, they enriched capital owners, they changed social structures, they altered governments.
Essentially - they are relevant discussion items for the topic at hand (if you're unaware, the general term "luddite" for use as "anti-technology" directly comes from the english textile workers getting replaced by looms, which they tried to destroy repeatedly, and were eventually suppressed with military force, with sentences including execution and exile to penal colonies).
That's not some blasé "waves hand 'technology good'" reference I'm making, and I think your response is partially so annoying because we likely agree on a lot of things about the potential negative impacts of AI.
I just think the way you're articulating it is relatively low effort, and I think the original post is absolutely allowed to say that. You'll get dismissed because you're so obviously wrong about the easily verifiable things that it's hard to take you seriously about anything.
Which is exactly the impact of comments like "Why talk about this because we'll all eventually die" - they alienate your allies because they are trivial and trite trash.
Okay well as long as we’re delivering low effort attacks, I totally agree and think the same of you. I can’t take your response or ANYTHING you say seriously. Good talk, you’re right there’s plenty of good discourse on AI between people. This conversation is a winning example.
No - I picked it precisely because it's a machine that improved efficiencies but undeniably had negative impacts as well.
I think that's my whole point - I'm not saying that the person I initially responded to is incorrect in not liking the impacts AI might have. I think it's a perfectly reasonable take to be concerned about how AI might impact you, and to express that, along with negative sentiments.
I'm saying that the argument they are currently making
> "Maybe the discourse sucks because the reality of it sucks?"
and even the slightly better
> "Okay calling a search engine and retrieving a result has been possible for a while. Llm companies just slapped statistical response on top as the UI."
Is a guaranteed way to be ignored and dismissed because it's a low effort emotional response - not an actual argument.
Those technological advancements with Llms are low effort advancements. So you only get low effort responses.
Do you understand why maybe no one’s wowed by browser automation/automated web search? Can you extrapolate why no one’s stoked to talk on Llm bots replacing them with low effort inaccurate “good-enough” fly-by-research summarization?
These are obvious for most people that’s why it’s low effort. You shouldn’t need to expound high-effort discussion just because you feel the low effort discussion doesn’t make a clear point or makes Llms look bad. The points are well discussed, and obvious. Hence low effort, hence sucky discourse.
Feel free to ignore and dismiss my perspective that doesn’t make me wrong or you right. It just makes you a bully.
You are making the author's point.
I think there's a lot more nuance in
> "isn’t it cool how this can replace the work that you do? Eventually we won’t even need you and you can go get a hobby to spend the rest of your life."
than you'd like to admit, and some conversations that are worth having in earnest instead of simply resorting to trivial things like
> "Maybe the discourse sucks because the reality of it sucks?"
Maybe the reality of it doesn't suck?
In the same way that a reality where we have things like bulldozers, printing presses, looms, and a cotton gin doesn't actually suck, at the end of the day.
It absolutely sucked for some people, some of the time - and that's an important part of the conversation, but it's not the conversation "end of sentence".