This sentiment gets echoed over and over. While I can certainly see the value in human-created creative works, if the subject is pure facts, there are only so many ways to state the facts without being caught in the weeds and missing your entire point.
Moreover, people are finding it hard to differentiate what is an is not AI-generated with newer models, often attributing original work with those of LLMs. It has just become an easy scapegoat for lazy comprehension and a desire to do less. You are jumping at AI boogeymen.
Just about the only thing here I can level with you on is, yes, AI is far from perfect and will continue to advance. Otherwise, so much of this reads as fruity prose to excuse apathy.
> If you are a student, you have to let go of the idea that you first acquire skills and basic knowledge and then solve problems
and my brain instantly equated it to "we want a new graduate with 30 years of experience." You always will need to build some basis of fundamentals before you can solve problems.
You will always need some fundamental basis of understanding. You cannot bake a new kind of cake if you do not know what preheating is. I believe that is why they give the PhD example. The bulk of education comes before a PhD. You cannot start with a complex problem and be expected to solve it without acquiring knowledge beforehand.
You can feel how you wish. Few dispute one should be free to express themselves in a way that does not impact others. You can do whatever you want in your own head. It is when your views butt against others that issues inevitably arise.
Much of what we have seen in regards to guardrails on AI has been driven by government pressure (ex. NSFW material). Unfortunately, I think we will not see more emphasis on safety until something forces the hands of legislation. Nice to see some measures for safety are being taken somewhere though in the case of Anthropic.
People rarely see when something works well. They only see when it breaks. For example, security has been dramatically improved with the help of AI finding vulnerabilities, only being limited by staff actually making fixes (https://medium.com/@the_atomic_architect/ai-zero-day-vulnera...). Life is full of "silent heroes" doing things without notice. Rarely do we see giant leaps overnight. It is a slow, silent advancement invisible to most. We are also still in the "growing pains" of finding the best use cases for AI.
Many have come to the conclusion it is a tool. If you are doing proper due diligence, the AI writes while you are at the gym, but you spend a bit of time when you get back to make sure it does what it is supposed to. It is often still leagues more efficient this way, even accounting for errors. We all know coworkers that produce just as many if not more errors we have to fix anyway.
While, yes, influences of course use social media, most companies have realized having a social media presence is important today. I would be interested to see stats on how beneficial social media has been to, say, Wendy's.
For many, it is less silly cat pictures and more listing products for sale from a legitimate registered business (catering is a common one for example). Gotta do what you gotta do sometimes. If you do not take advantage of tools afforded to you, someone will and because social media like facebook is "free," that is a go-to.
Why use a bulldozer to push down a mound of dirt when you can do the same with a shovel? It is faster, easier, and less prone to giving you back pain. Even assuming you are only reading the section of the book related to your issue, a computer works a fair bit faster.
Information like this should be front-and-center. Call it malicious compliance if one wishes, but if there is one thing that is clear, Meta does not do anything (besides try and make money) without being forced to. A blanket ban on anything political does indeed mean a ban on all sides of an issue, even ones many would agree is positive.
I would hope as long as there is a demand, there will be those willing to fill it. There never would be a problem because the skill set would stick around as long as there is the need for it. At least that has been the historical trend.
We still have horse farriers for show horses or for family pets. It is a niche there for those that need it, but nowhere near as common a job as it once was. It will likely be like this. Those that like doing it will stick to it, but we will not see Indeed listing jobs for it as much. Of course with less demand, less will have the skills, so those that do have them can definitely command quite the power when they are called on for something.
This is very true. As someone with quite the experience with materials published under Penguin, Scholastic, etc. you effectively have a "dictionary attack" on the matter, rather than true "brute force," but that still leaves quite a list to compile to send to each and is easier for larger titles than smaller ones. I wonder how that leads to a bias in what materials get used for training. You are not getting many local self-published books this way.
It is almost like we need a "for use for training" agreement across the board. This would not fix the current issues (at least without substantial work), but going forward would allow for creators (or publishers/rights holders) such as this to designate a work as crawl-able for AI. A robots.txt just for Claude.
Schrodinger's Bus: You do not know if you will be hit until you are already in the street. I feel like there is some promise in naming a band this, but it is unfortunate it so often is what people have to deal with when bringing an item to market.
I wonder if we will eventually see the same drop in general knowledge we saw with manual driving (in some parts of the world), cursive handwriting, clothing repair, etc. Of course, coding was never as prevalent as these practices in the general population, so it might be harder to measure, but I feel we will definitely see it taught less in schools, harder to find resources, etc. in the coming decades, becoming more of an underground hobby.
I wonder if anyone has run the numbers on what the actual cost, both in cash and logistical headache, contacting so many copyright holders would be. That seems like quite the feat to calculate.
While it is definitely over a decade at this point (over two in fact), some of this likely comes from the term [citation needed], that originated on Wikipedia, as a cynical backhanded response to unsourced claims. It has become a catch-all. Language and how it evolves is a pretty interesting subject.
Often times, narcissism comes with a strong will and assertiveness. It is hard to be full of yourself if you cannot also project yourself. People respect that kind of assertiveness. "Clearly, if this guy is so sure of themself, they must be good..." is the mindset many fall into. Of course, this line of thinking usually does not hold up forever and the facade can eventually break down.
So much of it is association. The human brain (for better or worse) is really good at building comfort in routine. If you see the same person over and over, you naturally will think they are just "part of the environment." They belong there. You get to know "how they tick" and even if that person has faults, you sometimes overlook them because you have built up a rapport. Yeah, Billy in accounting can sometimes be late, but he is friendly and always knows the scores from the big game.
We would rather a known variable, even if it is not the best instead of an unknown that might be better.
The nomenclature is largely derived from history. We called it that, so we continue to call it that. While I think changing it is possible, changing it to something new across many applications does more harm than good. We all understand that a floppy disk means save, a camera shutter sound means a picture has been taken, etc. The brain is good at associations based on past experience. Especially for those that are less tech-savvy, this is a god-sent. I like the core concept the writer here has in mind, but I think it fights against built-in brain conventions too much.
It has been shown time and time again that the only thing the US administration respects is brutish headbutting, so I cannot blame the Canadian government for responding with such a stance. It is unfortunate for everyone though that it is happening. Ultimately, these tariffs just tax the consumer for no real gain on either side. I think I speak for many when I say 2028 cannot come soon enough.
While it is an attractive way to present the data, the thresholds above 60% are not explained well. The line "The Maastricht Treaty set 60% as a target for EU members. Ratios above 90-100% are typically considered concerning" is all that is given.
Very nifty little app. It is such a standard thing nowadays, but the dynamic UI rescaling (to a point anyway) makes it nice to stick on the side and watch as the sun goes down. Kudos to the dev.
This is a great article. The current knee-jerk reaction to AI is nothing but human negativity bias. There is a colossal amount of information here akin to what you might find in an intro to computers class. I appreciate seeing things like this.