ddj231

> “The essential problem … is what economists call ‘transaction costs,’” Goldstein wrote in an email to The Daily. “Millions of individual copyrighted works may be copied in the course of any training incident, and it’s simply impracticable for the platform to obtain licenses from the copyright owner of every — or, indeed, any — single work.”

Seems strange. The question should be whether you legally have to do so or not. If you do whether it is impractical or not is not a reason to break the law. Perhaps it makes your business not feasible but so be it. If you ran a clothing store that required you steal from other brands and remix it for your customers, you couldn't say "it's impractical for me to get permission", no?

the assumption is that training llms is greater than training individuals. llms may lead to their own "breakthroughs" but so have many people without the use of llms. is the thinking that we'd be dependent on llms and so we are now forced to be only able to discover what llms find discoverable? sounds like a loss

It doesn’t fly though. Not to reduce the engineering feat, but it’s more a jumping car than a flying car.

NYC seems like a bad example since automatic doors haven’t been widely adopted.

you make a good point. on some level these technological advances are about tradeoffs. on the one hand it would be much better for a skilled teacher to take you through a plethora of problems--but since a teacher's time is limited one could make an argument for ai tools.

Though we've had great educations for many years before AI. The cost/benefit is still up in the air for ai use. I for one would not want to spend my time learning from the bot. I find the way it puts words together tiresome. To rely on it for my education, not withstanding its addicting affirmations etc. is not a clear win for me.

Both books you mentioned exist for the curious student. And a plethora of other books. With a good text book you aren't left on your own to figure these things out, the chapters explain the process you need to take to arrive at a correct solution. Combine that with working with your peers, office hours, educational videos, and so much more, and there is a lot for the student. (I mean these bots are trained on an already existing corpus of information)

In the case you described you aren't using AI as a shortcut to an answer but rather to emulate what a teacher would. If you were to then use AI to answer the questions it brings up for you you would have learned nothing in the process. Its like asking your teacher to solve the problems for you. You have an answer but also no growth.

But yes one could argue that using AI not as a means for answering a class's problems but rather to generate more exercises could be valid. Though I doubt students have a lack of practice problems these days.

I find AI is a bad communicator. So it is quite awkward to take advice on prose from a system that generates bad prose, though that could be possible. Still it is unclear, one would have to judge what benefits arise.

Now my earlier point was not that AI is not useful in any way. It is useful with code. Though there is the larger conversation on developer enjoyment etc in the age of AI coding--where the speed of AI generated code is expected, and developers are more alienated from aspects that made coding enjoyable.

Some teachers ban calculator use in their tests, some explicitly check if your work is derived from answers you did not come up with (something you found on the internet etc.). Unless a class takes account of some tool, using it could be to the detriment of the thing you are there for—namely an education.

I’m also for banning it in the sphere of education. First off for much of education the student is not on a quest to discover novel things. But rather to learn known concepts. Meaning the answer is not the point. The exploration of the student is the point. Having shortcut machines to the answer are detrimental.

Secondly it’s unclear whether shortcuts to many “answers” are wholly beneficial in many cases outside the academic sphere. Hence scandals when for example video educators use AI in their material. Or the general push back on AI writing, website design, etc. These answers are being pushed back on.

I think regardless there is a story that goes with the top level of a product. Hence why we have shows dedicated to these things, documentaries, movies, even shark tank. Products have journeys and stories, and part of what is passed from one person to the other is the story--not just the final product. (Not that this has to be a top level thing. and not undermining the labor of many people who are just there to do their job.)

Why I bring this up is because a lot of LLM usage is geared towards building new software products. We one shot some product, and there is no journey, larger collaborated effort. And one may have the feeling "why doesn't this feel as good as building it without this tool".

Yeah I've been thinking that products are a kind of communication. Part of what is communicated is the work, the effort or the journey that it took for the product to come to be. Like when a food product puts the origin story on the back.

LLM generated software seems to push every story to "I wrote some prompts and Claude spit this out". Perhaps that story if fatiguing repeated over and over again. And we're losing something.

On the surface that seems like the case, but after going through a situation similar to what GP described I'm not sure that's the case.

It's like everyone is fighting for your attention. One argues that an educational video is what you should watch. Another argues that building some piece of software you could easily pay a $1-$10 but now custom built for you is a better use of your time.

Also there's the lottery aspect. Where you use Claude thinking that something you build may strike gold. So it becomes like one big addicting lottery ticket for builders.

I wonder if the next addicting tech will be AI mania like you described. Rather than folks watching videos picked by the algorithm as a kind of addiction, folks will be "building" all day addicted to making things with AI. In the AI silo you're a super genius as it eggs you on to keep building

Quitting it completely would solve. The problem is it’s trying to be both a social site and a job utility. You may want the job utility and not the social feed. But they aren’t so disconnected. You land on the site, you’re on the feed. It’s engaging enough to catch your attention, but sloppy enough for you to not like it.

Seems like part of the danger of AI is the ability for folks to put blame for crimes on the AI rather than themselves and thus commit those crimes freely. “I didn’t hack your systems, it was my ai”

I'm surprised at the amount of people here confusing carriers with car seats. It seemed obvious enough to me in the article. It's about wearing babies on the plane, not babies sitting in their own seat.