Huh, I don’t know if I have the patience to read the 340 page report, but actually I’ve been. Thinking the opposite, for all the talk of the AI revolution, it doesn’t feel like there have been many downstream impacts in terms of pace of change.
davydm · 1d ago
Yes, there's more crap on YouTube, more people blindly following the prompts of a glorified autocorrect. The biggest change people need to make is to stop glorifying this as a route to solving all the things. I know humans are lazy, but c'mon.
mistrial9 · 1d ago
thanks for this tip but no thanks. Media hype generated by layers of people who do not code, do not paint or draw, do not write expository articles and do not write cute fiction, but are driven by deep pockets investor money.. actively pushes out the practice and livelyhood of skilled adults who must earn money to pay for living in Western society. There is a lot of deep pocket investor money (waves to MaryM), lots of cloud compute available for a time-unit billing price, and apparently enough people who will carry water for those investment bucks.
Simply pointing to the typical dull adult watching the parade of this, and half-heartedly urging some vague amount of understanding, seems to be cold-comfort and basically pissinginthe wind.
cyanydeez · 1d ago
pace of change is such an exceedingly useless metric.
eugenics is a good example of why we dont want to play god, because the types of data humans use to determine good and bad: visual phenotypes, easy to measure physical features, are rarely correlated with broader goals such as diverse gene pools, reistance to diease, and social cohesion.
Theres little evidence that we are, in the long term, as society, going to benefit.
think of things like pilots. most pilots now get experience from armed forces. they learn manual flight controls. as auto-pilot improves, the pipeline for pilots narrows.
At some point, we will have full self flying planes, and the number of pilots capable of flying will deceease.
so, the question of, can a novel emergency in flight always fallback to a human?
no, eventually there will be no fallback.
so the pace of change does matter and if it goes yo fast then we are endangering multiple societal goods.
you can argue, without evidence the overall errors will go down, but at some point we will cross the rubicon where theres no human fallback to keep the flight in motion.
PolygonSheep · 13h ago
But we do eugenics all the time with non-human animals and plants. We just call it "plant breeding" or "selective breeding". It has massively improved yields and desirable characteristics in animals and plants.
Simply pointing to the typical dull adult watching the parade of this, and half-heartedly urging some vague amount of understanding, seems to be cold-comfort and basically pissinginthe wind.
eugenics is a good example of why we dont want to play god, because the types of data humans use to determine good and bad: visual phenotypes, easy to measure physical features, are rarely correlated with broader goals such as diverse gene pools, reistance to diease, and social cohesion.
Theres little evidence that we are, in the long term, as society, going to benefit.
think of things like pilots. most pilots now get experience from armed forces. they learn manual flight controls. as auto-pilot improves, the pipeline for pilots narrows.
At some point, we will have full self flying planes, and the number of pilots capable of flying will deceease.
so, the question of, can a novel emergency in flight always fallback to a human?
no, eventually there will be no fallback.
so the pace of change does matter and if it goes yo fast then we are endangering multiple societal goods.
you can argue, without evidence the overall errors will go down, but at some point we will cross the rubicon where theres no human fallback to keep the flight in motion.