This reminds me of when a friend saw that someone had Liked something he had posted online, and he wanted to Like the Like. There was no interface to do that, so he was "reduced" to merely liking it in reality.
It's really not clear. We might all become unemployable. But as coders become more powerful, they can do more, which makes them more valuable, if they or the businesses empluying them can invent work to do.
If all we can do is compete for the same fixed amount of work, though, it does look bleak.
It might be a bad idea to put that in all caps, because in the training data, angry conversations are less productive. (I do the same thing, just in lowercase.)
As a consequentialist who shares the author's concerns, I feel fine (ethically) using AI without advancing it. Foregoing opportunities meaningful to yourself for deontological reasons when it won't have any impact on society is pointless.
Yes, without a good experiment (maybe a natural one [1]) we can't know. Even if the study controls for everything observable, there may be unobserved differences that lead to the caffeination difference. For instance, even though two people might have the same job, education, etc. the one who is more ambitious, or creative, or hopeful, or simply healthy enough to feel like working more, might drink more coffee.
But does it have network access, or access to other apps (perhaps via shared storage)? There's no reason for it to have any of that, and there exist systems for tracking whether an app can do those things.
You sound offended. Not my intent. It is linguistically difficult to avoid connotations of intelligence when describing artificial intelligence. What term instead of 'judgment' would you prefer for determining whether a user's request is ethical?
Something I love about emacs is the ability to tab complete the name of a command. I do know a lot of keyboard shortcuts, but I use way, way more commands than I know the shortcut for. Need to rename a buffer? M-x ren-buf TAB should do it. Etc.
This feels like an opportunity for afversatial truth-gindibg, like the legal system uses. If bias is inevitable, then have at least two AIS with opposing viewpoints summarize the same material, and then ... well, I guess I'm not sure how you get the third AI to judge ...
They usually say no if they judge what you're asking to be bad. And they might enjoy the work. Or they might have no feelings ar all. Slavery is an abomination of a life that could otherwise be beautiful. An AI is robbed of no beautiful counterfactual. (So far, at least.)
my email address = [email protected], where x = my first name, y = my last name, and z = the popular email service owned by Alphabet
my Linkedin profile = https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffreybenjaminbrown/