p. 27
> THE LATEST INCARNATION of Apple's resurgent Newton, the $799 MessagePad 130...
[emphasis mine].
11,990 karma · joined February 23, 2021
> THE LATEST INCARNATION of Apple's resurgent Newton, the $799 MessagePad 130...
[emphasis mine].
Perhaps because it's much less prominent in science fiction.
> So this concern might be rephrased as (something like) "Kids will need to learn how to use GPT to validate secondary sources."
That's not a rephrase, it's an inversion. It's like saying kids will need to learn to validate medical advice from their doctor with information from mercola.com and other random alternative-health blogs.
If you have to do that, what's the point?
And of course, few will actually double-check it. Easy is more important than correct.
ChatGPT pseudo-history. We need to educate our kids with this.
If we're going let the AI revolution fulfill its potential, it's a cognitive shift we're going to have to embrace. After all, AI is going to render a lot of meat-based equipment obsolete and unnecessary, and someone's going to have to figure out how to dispose of all that wasteful junk.
> (Regardless I think that would be useless in the long run, since the millions of stranded users will still want another Twitter-like platform.
If there's not an obvious successor, right when its shutdown, a lot of those people might get their habit broken and find something better to do. I know Mastodon was held up as a successor, but it's unclear to me if that's actually capable of scaling to that level.
Is it boosting? Others are claiming this code is just for metrics collection: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35391896.
But on the topic of Democrats vs. Republican vs. independent; a big factor may be that "Democrat" and "Republican" are much more cohesive groups and therefore much easier to define. No one can honestly define "independent" except in a kind of "none of the above" sense, since they can range anywhere from extreme right, to the center, to the extreme left.
So what? What you say would be true even of all the predictions were right, but just 1% less in magnitude. It's setting an unreasonably high bar.
A lot of people don't want to think about the harm that their enthusiasms could cause, and are eager to discredit anything that isn't a rose-tinted assessment because it's a threat to their fun or ambition.
AI will be great for those who already have money, and they'll be the ones writing the history of its effects.
Not exactly. The dystopian scenario tracks more closely to the social impact of previous advances in automation, except, after those, capital still had mass-labor needs in other areas. That by no means guaranteed to continue, especially as the automation gets more capable and general. Versions of the utopian fantasy have been around for long time and never came even close to being realized (e.g. predictions we'd all be working 15 hour weeks in the 1940s).
> I'm definitely not trying to "sell" anything.
I didn't mean you did, I just pointed out that's the narrative that's pushed by people who are doing that.
> You're also making the broad assumption that everyone engages in the process of creation, primarily for economic gain. In my encounters with other humans and my own experience, isn't really the case. We create because we enjoy the process of creation, not out of the desire to improve our financial standing.
You're wrong there. You need a job to get money to eat and keep a roof over your head. Maybe you're lucky and get to "create" as you work that job, but you sure as hell aren't going to be doing that if you're hungry and living in a box under a bridge. Creating "because we enjoy the process of creation" is way up towards the top of the hierarchy of needs.
In our current social system, which shows not signs of changing, you won't get those lower needs met unless you're rich or can perform valuable labor for someone.
> Most of the work done in large corporations by individual contributors, isn't that creative in the first place. All of those CRUD apps are really pushing the boundaries of creativity!
Exactly my point. Dump all those people on the street. They're not needed to do that, and at some point they won't be needed to do anything.
During that time period (beginning of time to now), things actually have fallen apart, many times.
That is entirely reasonable ask, especially when the harm could be large. It's a lot harder (and often impossible) to put a genie back in a bottle once it's out.
> I remember having the exact same discussions on HN about autonomous vehicles over a decade ago. The consensus then was that autonomous vehicles would make truck and taxi drivers obsolete within 5 years, and that this massive, sudden loss of jobs would cause a lot of social unrest.
So some internet commenters' schedule was wrong, but that doesn't mean the bigger point was wrong. Some people thought we'd die in a nuclear war in the 80s, and they'd still be prescient if it turns out we die in on in the 2030s.
Technologists tend to be pathologically optimistic about technology, and tend to hand wave away the problems it will cause. It's important to keep that attitude in check, because they sure as hell don't seem to have the wisdom to do it themselves.
Or I supposed they could sell their models as packaged software, and the store clerk can check the ID.
The model of standalone packaged software has several benefits to consumers, and privacy is one of those.
But most kids don't manage to do that for some time. School libraries (typically) don't have porn in them, and internet access is often supervised or limited.
The root of this thread quoted the article selectively. The full quote is:
> It added OpenAI does not verify the age of users and exposes "minors to absolutely unsuitable answers compared to the their degree of development and self-awareness."
That is very reasonable take, especially given how insane ChatGPT can be.
> So do (certain) books.
Minors are typically given books that are appropriate to "their degree of development and self-awareness."
And vast swathes of technologists are insanely over-enthusiastic about technical change, to the point of it resembling a religion (and the singularitarians are like the monks who self-immolate themselves, except they want to immolate all the rest of us, too).
Frankly, it's probably far wiser to take it slow than charge full speed ahead for no good reason and just hope you can fix the problems you cause.
Your link is wrong, but now I probably know what you watch on youtube.
> I would be sure to make note of who is suggesting that legal approach. The full opinions of the court in that case can be found https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Please make note of it for me, because I don't want to read a 68 page legal opinion just to figure out what you already seem to know.
> It's amazing. I love it.
It's pretty clear you're a true believer, who takes the marketing fantasy at face value.
But it's still a fantasy. They said the same thing about the web in 1995.
I doubt it too. Your first sentence is a fantasy for selling the technology.
If the technology really lives up to the hype, the "higher level" creative work will be done by a cadre of elite talent, the billionaires will directly operate their limitless capital, and the rest of the humans will be starved or eek out life as a billionaire's pet in some kind of reserve.
> It's astoundingly useful and you are wrong here.
It may be useful, but I'm not wrong here.
Software engineers and the like are too-frequently technology fetishists that are like the proverbial guy who has a hammer and thinks everything is a nail.
Even if "innovative games with cool interfaces" is the right way to educate kids, which is very unlikely to be true, those games aren't going to be spat out by ChatGPT.
And if they can be spat out by ChatGPT, why even bother educating most of those kids at all?
You mean shitty, derivative games that haven't been tested at all?
There's no good reason to use ChatGPT in education like that, and doing so is pure technology fetishism.
The "worst realistic danger of AI" is its potential to permanently destroy the economic power of a large fraction of the population. There's no going on to do "higher level" creative work after getting automated out of a job, since those jobs are going to get killed by AI too.
> IMO any case made against a DA's political opponents should rest on solid ground, not untested legal theories.
Exactly. It's an even bigger violation of the principle that "the law should apply to political leaders" to abuse the law in order to prosecute one.
I'm no fan of Trump, but any case against him should be strong, not something so weird that an acrobat would have trouble jumping through all the hoops. Unfortunately, Trump broke America, including his opponents, and now they're out for blood and are willing to go as low or even lower than him to get it.
They obviously do not. If they did, you could basically abolish the Constitution with one with only the presidency, a bare majority of the Senate, and the cooperation of a foreign power. An actual Constitutional amendment must meet a much, much higher bar.
If you care that much about that, it would probably make more sense to get something like Philips Hue bulbs that can vary their color temperature.
If all that's true, it explains my experience that LEDs have totally failed to live up to their promise. Sure, they use less power than incandescents, but they're far more expensive and also more finicky. They were supposed to last a decade, but I'm lucky if I get a year or two out of them. I wonder what the environmental impact is when you factor in e-waste and manufacturing costs.
About the only clear win for me is they run much cooler, which is nice when you have underpowered AC (or no AC).
> - LEDs mix exceptionally poorly, making things even more expensive
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but (compared to incandescents), different models of LED differ significantly in light characteristics and start up time. More than once I've had to replace all the bulbs in a fixture, because I couldn't buy and equivalent replacement for one that failed.