mindcandy

My POV is that indicates you need to up your expectations for yourself. You apparently have the knowledge and experience to cause 80 hours worth of work to be completed in a few sentences given today’s tools.

So then, given your knowledge and experience, what challenge would require 80 hours of real, focused work out of you using today’s tools?

I get not wanting to contribute to closed, commercial models. We need to hurry up and get Folding-at-Home style distributed community model training going. At that point, I’d be pretty happy if my projects contributed to improving community models. Even if commercial models benefited too.

Good for them?

Agreed.

I've been seeing too much "I've been coding for decades and what I've always done has be reduced to telling AI to do it for me."

and not nearly enough "I've been coding for decades and recently worked hard for months with AI's help to make something I would have never considered possible before."

Much easier to complain that you are bored than to step back up to high-effort with your new fancy tools.

My understanding is that "The best reasoning they give" is the entire point. It such a huge issue that it drowns out all of the valid but smaller issues you are pointing out. And, the benefit to the water is just a bonus.

Great! That's how knowledge is supposed to work.

> I don’t like them. They talk to me in this grating LLM-voice

I find that what makes people hate LLM-voice isn’t the voice itself. It’s that the voice pings their brain with a reminder of their AI anxiety. That ping makes people instantly upset.

> They confidently bullshit me - often giving me useful, helpful answers. But also just making stuff up with the same assurance … When we think of AI agents, we shouldn’t anthropomorphize... They are (software) machines

I believe these ideas contradictory. I find that people get angry at LLMs bullshitting precisely because they are not anthropomorphizing. People bullshit all the time. But, these are machines! Machines are not supposed to bullshit! And, when they do, there’s supposed to be a bug filed and fixed.

By holding LLMs up to the expectations of machines instead of expectations of (simulated) people, users are frustrating themselves.

If you take the same “trust but verify (everything)” approach with LLMs as you do with people, you’ll be a lot less frustrated.

Micropayments would solve so many problems for the internet. And, cryptocurrencies would solve so many problems for micropayments. But, it's a non-starter because any proposal gets flooded with people popping veins about how crypto can't solve anything.

Check it out: As millions of people have recognized, we have a new discoverability problem! How about, out of the 9 billion people on Earth, we figure out how to get a few dozen of them motivated to work on that instead of sitting and moping for the rest of our lives about the end of human creativity?

They are ridiculous because the reality of the situation is boring. Boring doesn’t drive engagement. So, all the clickbait headlines and ragebait comments imply scandal. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t get attention.

After being clickbaited and ragebaited, media consumers feel deeply anxious and angry. But, explaining that they are angry over a boring situation feels silly, not righteous. So, they give summaries, impressions, sometimes extrapolation of the bait they have been consuming. That feels righteous.

This observation applies to a wide variety of topics trending in the various media every day. Distinguishing injustice from ragebait unfortunately requires non-trivial effort from the reader.

I’m trying to imaging what giving credit would look like… “Credit: Everyone who has made anything freely observable on the internet.” Would folks be less upset if that was included?

Frankly, I should have been putting something similar attached to any drawings or paintings I make physically. My entire life I’ve been training my brain on countless works of others. And, I’ve never asked one of them for permission or given anyone any credit.

Lots of wild guesses about mixed human-AI copyright in here. Last time I read the copyright office’s statements in this, their stance was basically: The human owns exactly what they contribute. The rest is public domain.

Yes, that is vague. I think the examples were like:

If you paint a symbol and use an AI filter over that to stylize it, you own the symbol aspect of the image but not the stylized final result.

You can own a book of AI images as a curated collection. But, not the individual images.

You are reacting to the author reacting to Zuck reacting to Zuck's daughter mentioning she uses AI to help plan recipes. It's a one-sentence, third-hand anecdote in a large article that folks in here are fixating on because of bike shedding.

Maybe Zuck's daughter appreciates cooking differently than you do. If AI helps her enjoy the part she likes about cooking by getting her past whatever friction would make her less likely to cook otherwise, then good for her.

Sure, it's possible. But, rent control is a serious disincentive to housing development. It requires correspondingly serious investment from the politicians to overcome that. In practice, what is done is to disincentivize for short term gain, not invest in long term gain, and complain that it's going terribly in the long term.