sheepolog

"technology and science become magical incantations dictated by a black-box oracle, whom everyone trusts and no one understands"

I don't see why this would be a terrible thing.

This is what humanity has done for thousands of years. We do things manually for a long time, then invent an efficient way to automate it, and the skills to do things manually are gradually lost.

A car is a magic black box that we trust to move us around. A smartphone is a magic black box that we trust to connect to the rest of the world. AI is just the latest invention in a long line of magic black boxes that we trust. If you'd prefer to live your life without a car or smartphone or AI, it is perfectly acceptable to do so, and there are communities of people who do that.

I think I'm detecting a concern that "if we don't understand how it works, it could start doing dangerous things". To that I would say: even if something is a magic black box, we can still improve it and make it safer. To invent an airbag, you don't need to understand how a car works.

I'm not sure why you say the analogy fails just because general AI has more applications than excavators. A tool is still a tool, regardless of how much human effort it replaces.

"Calculator" used to be a job title. Now it's a machine. In the same way, "construction worker" may one day be a machine. "Software engineer" may one day be a machine. "Engineer" in general may one day be a machine. This forum seems to think that if humans are not required to think hard about existing problem domains, something terrible will happen.

At the end of the AI revolution, thinking may become something like physical exercise -- something we do because it's fun, and keeps us healthy and attractive, not because it's required.

To be clear, I do think that AI poses a potential risk to humanity. But imo "we won't have to think as hard" is not a risk; it's a benefit.

100%. There's a spectrum of SEs in this thread. On one end of the sprectrum, programming is a means to an end. As long as they get the cool thing at the end, they don't care how they got it. On the other end of the spectrum, the programming is the reward. They're interested in making cool stuff, but the really fun part is in writing it themselves.

It's like someone who uses CNC to make cool wooden sculptures, vs someone who painstakingly crafts them by hand. The industry used to reward the workers who knew how to make stuff by hand. Now, someone's invented a CNC machine. The CNC workers are asking "what's the point of doing it slower?" and the hand craftspeople are asking "what's the point of doing something I don't enjoy?"

At the end of the day, there is room for both types of people in the industry. In an era of automated textiles, some people still make a living selling clothing knit by humans. But as the machines get better and better, those who make things by hand will become less valued and will have to compete with each other for the "artisan" label.

Thanks for replying! The ergonomics recommend not resting your forearms on the edge of the table, but as you say, everybody's anatomy is different; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

In case anyone else comes into this comment section looking for ideas: the thing that helped me the most was adding soft pads to my chair armrests - I found that resting my elbows on the hard surface of the default armrests resulted in forearm pain.

That's interesting! I'm curious to know: is there a bend in your wrist while typing (either with or without the wrist rest)? Also, are your arms parallel to the floor? Also also, do you rest your elbows on anything?

Opinions definitely do have a genetic component. Twin study meta-analysis suggests that 40-50% of your personality is inherited.

I agree that these days, the bulk of the drive to procreate comes from your culture/memetics.

For what it's worth, Switzerland's fertility rate (1.59 births per woman) is still well below the replacement rate, and has been for decades.

I think "make society more child-friendly" is a good idea, but one that doesn't seem to have increased fertility that much. To me it seems that educated people living comfortable lives with access to birth control simply don't want to have that many children. If you look at the country stats, the most proven way to increase fertility is to take away education, women's rights, or birth control. And imo, the western world should adapt to low birth rates, instead of trying to prop them up.

Thanks; can you share a link to these stats?

Not at all! I would guess that a sizable minority of "can't save money" people are in that position due to chronic illness or supporting others.

I have no idea what it costs to support a family member with a disability; probably varies wildly but I would guess it's about the same annual cost as raising a child? Except that annual cost never goes away.

I didn't downvote them, but I am genuinely curious to hear from people who "can't save money", and try to understand why that's the case. My assumption is that a large percent of them are spending way more than they need to, but that could easily be an incorrect stereotype.

So much life enjoyment is tied to feeling competent and respected. Seeing a new, more talented challenger on the horizon is bound to be discouraging to some extent. It's like going from high school to college all over again: you used to be the top of your class, now you're surrounded by people just as competent as you.

> What possible use could there be for doing this?

Umm...the same use we get out of an annual physical or dental checkup.

I agree with everything you just said.

I believe these are very difficult but not impossible problems. There are technical limitations to our measuring tools, but I am optimistic that future medical advancements (maybe far in the future) will provide ways of measuring and diagnosing that may seem like science fiction today.

I am not attempting to trivialize the work that medical professionals do, or fault doctors for being fallible. I am attempting to encourage the development of medical technology to cut down on what I perceive to be a high rate of misdiagnosis (10-15%).

Eventually, diagnostic systems (whether AI or human+AI) will significantly outperform current human doctors.

If humans have different normal ranges, then the tests will be specific to the individual, based on their health history, DNA, tissue simulation in digital environment, etc. If adrenal nodules of similar diameter behave differently, then the tests will inspect more than just diameter.

The data to make the correct diagnosis is out there, we just don't have the tools or processing power to use it yet.

All the more reason to have better diagnostic tools (not to mention faster imaging)! All humans are fallible; I hope one day diagnosis is the easiest part of a doctor's job.