Kiln6125

Yeah but then it goes the same way with LLMs? Just spend a few weeks delving the stack and then you go on coding. Learning a codebase of enterprise-scale compiler-generated assembly sounds like a much bigger nightmare than fixing up ai generated code.

Because this isn't the case, training AI on its own output is more akin to what you get from pointing a camera at a TV showing its own output. Its a feedback loop that causes noise to blow up out of proportion and leaves nothing meaningful behind but a self-recursive loop. This is "what makes ai generated text poisonous to ais".

Well, at least for Peter Molyneux he seems to be giving it one last shot at making something overly ambitious: https://store.steampowered.com/app/3165650/Masters_of_Albion...

Not quite. The two cases are "team loses, everyone goes home and doesn't buy loads of drinks" in which case you get the payout from having bet (sorry, purchased insurance) on that team losing, offsetting your loss from not getting the money from drinks. Alternatively, the team wins, you lose your bet (insurance pay) but everyone gets loads of drinks and you make your money that way.

Personally, for me that represents job security. Having a human with a high level of domain knowledge in the loop seems pretty required to get any meaningful results.

Truthfully, it doesn't shock me that the founder of Craigslist in particular, a site that found a good, workable setup and then left it as is, would know this. Its more disappointing that no one else really seems to know when enough is enough.

Somewhat relevant to this overall conversation is "pierre menard author of the quixote". Which takes the concept of death of the author in an amusing direction.

The issue is that the claims do not in any way stem from the concept that screens are the issue. Everyone else is talking about how the usage and content delivered through the screens are the issue. What you're describing seems to be semantics at best. It's akin to people talking about not going to strip clubs, and you saying "what's wrong with stages?".

There are quite a few of these studies from the modern era about the effect that these devices have on children. They posit the exact opposite of what you're saying here, and have data to back it up. I presume that these are what you're referring to as "non-scientific" here and have specific issues with their methodology, and not just disliking the concept that phone/social media could be bad in some fashion.

Can you explain why they are all false?

Very silly, even generals from hundreds of years ago spent their time and efforts on war games in order to hone their skills. Maybe it speaks to how many can learn much more easily if it is in service of an overall bigger picture or goal?

The amusing thing is that I genuinely do not know which side you mean to refer to here. I guess it really does prove the point above.