Because people have lives to get on with. People need to use computers. People have better things to do with their time than spend weekends learning about the details of internet security. It is an elitist position to say that protections erode freedom. In my ICE car the engineers have specified the grade of oil that I need to use. Certainly if I knew the details of the engine, the weather it will be used in, and other factors I could choose alternate oil grades. Are my freedoms being eroded by grade of oil being mandated?
Not really. When I spend time in rural areas I see bar codes and QR codes are used everywhere. All this does is allow for the option for a business to put their barcode into your phone rather than having to carry around a paper copy. It doesn't preclude the use of paper. Your posting is a false dichotomy. The gap between urban and rural isn't that large.
I don't think such a market for "human code" will emerge except in narrow art circles. That will not be code that people run for useful purposes.
The fact is that humans have never been good a writing code. The complexity can exceed the limits of human abilities. AI tools have no such issues. I love coding, but I enthusiastically embrace AI tools because I can write better code now.
Early automobiles were very simple machines. I you knew how to repair a carriage or a wagon, you were pretty close to being able to work on an early automobile. You should check them out.
The "complexity crisis" isn't a solvable problem. Complexity is a reality in software engineering just like wind loading is a reality in structural engineering. You can't "solve" the wind and you can't "solve" complexity. That's where engineering comes in.
Why are you spending your precious time and energy trying to guess if something was written by AI? Does it make you happy? Does it add value to your life? Why do you do this now when there has always been low quality content generated by lazy authors? You admit it is making reading less enjoyable. Why not just enjoy reading?
You can do that exact thing with Ableton if you want. If you want to put in low effort you can do that. You can find beats labeled “1980’s pop” and use presets from other people. You can put in high effort using AI tools and fine tune every aspect of the result if you want. It’s just another tool. You are conflating effort with the tool.
It is exactly “another tool”. Just like Abelton with an automated drum machine is another tool for creating music. As the posting shows the tool isn’t doing the entire activity for you. The author is reprompting the tool to generate a result more inline with their vision.
Not every poster has that issue as you can see from the posting. It is a simple matter of caring enough to look at the output in more detail. These are issues that can be overcome.
No. There is a limit. Most non-trained people don’t know how to draw a straight line or layout type. If you go to a restaurant and see a poorly laid out menu you often think of the food more negatively. I think that the opposite is true too. If you go to a hole-in-the-wall restaurant and see a menu that looks like it was generated by a top New York design firm you will also think negatively because is it inauthentic.
I love this posting. Taste is something that needs to be worked for. It doesn’t matter how well the tool renders the output if the tool user has not taste (me included).
In the future I think that users will learn more, and tools will get better. The true tell of AI usage will be that a small organization will have a beautiful poster. That was never possible in the past.
I would consider the approach in this posting to be rude. I feel like they are shoving a bunch of information at me without context. Part of the purpose of the salutation is to allow the call receiver to orient themselves. “Who is calling?” “How urgent is this?” “Do I have time to talk now?”
Thanks for putting the effort in on this. The author pointed out that no LLMs were used in the production of the blog post. To be honest the first thing I did was put the blog post into an LLM and asked it to simplify. The LLM did a great job of providing a very clear explanation for me.
This is one of the super powers I find for LLMs. I am certain that this particular derivation spoke to the author and seemed like the obvious approach. In my experience math derivations a highly personal. What resonates with me will not resonate with someone else. An LLM allows an infinite number of variations. Thanks again to the author.
I'm still paying OpenAI $20/month for a product that has gotten massively more valuable. That's the problem. They aren't getting any more money from me for a product which is much more valuable.
It's clear you are not a hiring manager. There aren't thousands of highly qualified engineers looking for work. I can't tell if this a troll post or not.
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.