That's not how nuclear triggers work. There a multiple layers of safe guards. I would be more sympathetic to your position if you were to solve for the multiple layers of social engineering needed to fire a nuke. That is a more plausible path.
It's not quibbling details. The extinction argument fails to show how that might happen. AI technology has no agency. It can't control the physical world. Humanoid robots aren't going to be on the march to exterminate humanity. Biological system are the only plausible path. We can narrowly define controls around that technology.
Because there aren't that many clusters and the ones that exist are tightly controlled. there are only a handful of data centers able to run the largest models and they're being used at full capacity people would notice if suddenly the capacity went down a lot because it was being used by a different system.
This paper is either written in bad faith or by people who are ill-informed. The repeated references to Stockfish and Go playing programs seems like a rhetorical tool rather than a genuine argument. The paper claims that advanced AI will want to kill us, but then provides no mechanism by which that could happen.
I don't see it being "crystal clear" that skill decline is real. People are doing work they wouldn't have been able to do before. They are getting a more broad exposure to technologies than they have before.
No one knows the ramifications. They won't be known for many years. That's the way software has always worked. No one knew the ramifications of the internet.
I could not agree more. Thank you for stating this. Software Engineering is about building things. You don't do it for status, you do it for passion. There are a lot of unhappy individuals who got into CS because of the money or status.
Most popular fiction is formula entertainment like Tom Clancy novels. Tom Clancy novels are their own industry now. I have zero doubt that AI tools can generate countless variations of good guy US special OPs going after bad guy terrorist books. The "AI tropes" are over sold on HN. With the correct prompting and iteration today's AI tools can make nuanced fiction which avoids the low effort tropes. BTW "high effort" work with AI tools is but a small fraction of what of the effort using traditional means.
What is the purpose of copyleft when there are tools that can generate equivalent code? Copyleft keeps software free by using copyright to protect the effort of human creators. If tools can create the code is it is in the public domain then it has accomplished the same thing. Code is not under the control of large corporations.
Code was always expensive. Entire industries of design tools cropped up simply to avoid writing the wrong code since it is so expensive. There are entire journals dedicated to this. Organizations are fixated on making sure that the right code is written since the cost of getting that wrong is so great.
How can there be tons of evidence for a 3 year old technology? Everyone seems to think that all writers using AI are one shotting their content. A writer can carefully edit and revise their content using AI tools just as well as manual writing. That's what I do when I use AI to write. I also never use AI to write interpersonal content. Just like I won't type a Valentines letter to my wife, I'll handwrite. I only use AI to write technical documents.
The heuristics you are looking for are "editorial" and "curation". That's why there are things like newspapers and magazines. The world has always been awash in more low effort content than can be consumed. We rely on trusted human editors at these organizations to filter content. There is nothing new going on. Perhaps subscribe to sites with editorial that you agree with.
That's not what the author is saying at all. You are presuming that AI is capable of generating original thoughts. The author's point is that original thought is what matters. If a skilled writer with decades of experience can generate low effort content just as well as someone using an LLM. Your use of the word "dilettante" is elitist and says that only certain people should be allowed to express themselves.
An alternate framing for these types of "the old web was better" articles is: "I really liked the web better when only privileged, highly educated people could put up content". The reality is that there was a lot of implicit gatekeeping going on in the early web because of the technical hurdles.
Can you provide reasons other than "he's wrong"? There is no other technology that compresses so my knowledge into such a small space. A 24 GB diffusion model can generate a good approximation of any human relevant image from a description. Ask it to generate an image of the Tivoli fountain and it will do an impressive job. You can't use it as a map, but it gives an excellent representation.
Finally I don't think there are "dangerous ways" to think of any technology. This is just another tool.
Most of the discussions I've read about AI is as a tool. There is a narrative being created that its all about replacing humans. I've not seen that outside of a view influencers.
I don't think you can make the absolute statement that there is no audience or market for these tools. I enjoyed watching all of these videos. They are far from banal crap. They are deranged. They are not intentionally deranged, it is limitation of the tool. If a video artist were to employ these tools not to save effort, but instead to create an aesthetic it would be proper and good use. Just like non-AI video editors or color grading tools.
Handwriting is inherently ableist. A portion of the population is blessed with the inherent ability of fast, legible handwriting. A portion of the population is not. Typing is an equalizer that allows more people to participate in the conversation.
The same way that I verified all of the code that was written before AI. Just because you hand type the code doesn't mean that you don't have to test and verify. I can test much more thoroughly with AI that without.
Sorry but you are just wrong. Perhaps if you are working on tiny problems in very small projects. Beyond that AI is simply many times faster regardless of how fast you type.
You seem to have a narrow definition of "build it". LLMs don't have agency. If I build software using an LLM I built it. Just like if I build a house out of lumber from a lumber mill, I built it even though I didn't hand carve the 2x4s.
The llm is the better community tool. The important change is that you don't have to settle with someone developing a monolithic tool that happens to do what you need it to do. That was the way things used to need to be done because of the cost.
I don't agree that Anthropic's position is AI is all you need. My interpretation is that it's about developer acceleration. I've been following their messaging closely and it's not that you can fire all of your developers. It's mostly their developers saying they are somewhat more productive. They have published papers showing that productivity gains are uneven.
The point of cursive was make writing efficient with a quill pen. With a quill pen you run the risk of ink dropping off the tip if you lift it from the paper. Therefore cursive tries to keep the pen in contact with the paper most of the time. I've never thought of cursive as a speed tool. My printing has always been much faster than my cursive.