To be fair, it's not clear human intelligence is much more than search or autocomplete. The only thing that's clear here is that LLMs can't reproduce it.
Yes but colloquially this characterization you see used by laymen is deliberately used to deride AI and dismiss it. It is not honest about the on the ground progress AI has made and it’s not intellectual honest about the capabilities and weaknesses of Ai.
I disagree. The actual capabilities of LLMs remain unclear, and there's a great deal of reasons to be suspicious of anyone whose paycheck relies on pimping them.
The capabilities of LLMs are unclear but it is clear that they are not just search engines or autocompletes or stochastic parrots.
You can disagree. But this is not an opinion. You are factually wrong if you disagree. And by that I mean you don’t know what you’re talking about and you are completely misinformed and lack knowledge.
The long term outcome if I’m right is that AI abilities continue to grow and it basically destroys my career and yours completely. I stand not to benefit from this reality and I state it because it is reality. LLMs improve every month. It’s already to the point of where if you’re not vibe coding you’re behind.
Let me be utterly clear. People with your level of programming skill who incorporate AI into their workflow are in general significantly more productive than you. You are a less productive, less effective programmer if you are not using AI. That is a fundamental fact. And all of this was not true a year ago.
Again if you don’t agree then you are lost and uninformed. There are special cases where there are projects where human coding is faster but that is a minority.
Even having so much clear evidence why this is so absent from national discourse (namely, so many people from such a wide swath of society have been named, even if not in a directly incriminating manner), I'm shocked that there hasn't been more if a push to discuss the potential implications. The kind of money that could be made just speculating outside of partisan discourse is.... jaw-dropping.
But it's really just independent people here and there, and mostly framed around some (typically partisan) polemic. Really leaves me scratching my head.
The chilling effect of the executive. The current admin leverages government agencies against the corporation who will report on this if not to their liking.
> It is probably why, by people complaining about a 5% inflation, the government had to take drastic moves to suppress it.
This is only a half-truth. Complaints are only worth respecting if people hold their governments accountable. There's a reason why single-payer healthcare polls higher than either party in the US. Inflation gets attention because it affects a minority of the population that matters more.
Only by some definitions of poverty—crucially, definitions that beg the question of rational wealth distribution. I would never, personally, defend such worldviews.
This doesn't alter anything about what I said. It's still goddamn evil how bad we are at distributing resources in this world. Justice would look like actions that are not legal to advocate for in this country.
Most resources go to average people, how is that bad? Wealth is not resource distribution, consumption is, and by far the most consumption is done by the middle class.
Consumption tax is said to be regressive since it doesn't work on rich people since they invest, that should tell you that consumption is much more evenly distributed than wealth is.
> It's still goddamn evil how bad we are at distributing resources
How. How on earth is it evil if you or I have a bit more wealth than the other? Who gives a flying fuck, except... except those who seek power. Total power. You can't have peace as long as you or your preferred leaders are not in total power, and you won't let the rest of us have peace either.
> Only by some definitions of poverty—crucially, definitions that beg the question of rational wealth distribution.
What do you care about wealth distribution? Why should anyone? As long as we each can a) not be poor, b) prosper, c) live our lives in peace, none of us should care that someone else is wealthier (or less so) than us.
"But wealth inequality!!" is just moving the goal posts: so poverty has gone down and has been going down, but you can't be satisfied with that, not even if it goes to zero. No, you want something else: power -- total power.
> So, following that line of thinking, what will come next are better predictive capabilities
You can also view science as a rejection of the ability to be able to predict (arbitrary) things. Any illusion otherwise is simply seemingly reliable knowledge of the past and present. The rise of eg disinformation and misinformation, siloed communication, the replication crisis could presage a future where confidence is generally lower than the past, and predictive power is more limited.
I caution heavily against the idea that what you perceive as "progress" is inevitable or will follow past trends
Reality is complicated. The future may be unknowable from a strict point of view. But educated guesses are better than just random. Not for lotto numbers, but to take better decisions. Deciding that everything is potentially false, biased, or unreliable and so doing whatever your guts (that are also biased) tell you may have a worse outcome.
This is leaking out of the us, too. The cultural gap between people who have money, access to the internet, and who can speak english, and those people living within a mile away who have none of these things, has never been wider.
reply