> The real question is, who can verify that what the AI built is good and true? Recently, there's a lot of talk about AI allegedly finding security flaws in software. That is an unsubstantiated claim. As such, it would need to be verified by a non-machine, and arguably, the verification process would require the same amount of effort or more than would be required to find the issue to begin with.
Came for the bad AI take, stayed for the P=NP claim.
It is crazy to me that any parent of young children would let their kids watch YouTube videos on their own. Maybe this happened gradually enough that some parents didn't notice, but we had our first kid a couple years ago and I nope'd out of YouTube pretty quickly when I saw what was there. Even the channels known for being good - which we occasionally let the kids watch as long as we were present and choosing the videos - started to clearly optimize for engagement over quality, and so now we're done with it entirely. The stuff there for "kids" legitimately horrifies me.
This is even more misleading. You have to eat to live, but absolutely not all water usage for food is mandatory.
If you gave me a budget of how much water I could "use" water every year, and I was close to going over, I could easily pay for my annual AI use just by changing what I eat for lunch on a day or two. I could pay for years of AI use just by forgoing buying a new pair of jeans.
The water argument has always felt so intellectually dishonest to me because it's never approached from the perspective of "hey, we're using too much water, how can we conserve it?" If we approached it from that perspective, reducing AI usage would not even crack the the top 100 list of things we would do. But that's not the goal of the water argument, because it quite obviously actually has nothing to do with water.
This thread is a great discussion and I have kept coming back to it over the last couple days to read more of it when I have a chance. I’m kind of disappointed that it artificially ended. I think at some useful comment threshold level you just have to let it go.
>But it shouldn't matter if he gave 5 bullets to Chat gpt that expanded it to a full page with a detailed plan.
The coworker should just give me the five bullet points they put into ChatGPT. I can trivially dump it into ChatGPT or any other LLM myself to turn it into a "plan."
On this topic I think it’s pretty off base to call HN a “well insulated bubble” - AI skepticism and outright hate is pretty common here and AI negative comments often get a lot of support. This thread itself offers plenty of examples.
They are useful for putting URLs in print materials like books. Useful for sharing very long links in IRC and some other text based chat apps (many google maps links would span multiple IRC lines if not shortened, for example). They are good for making more easily scannable QR codes.
Came for the bad AI take, stayed for the P=NP claim.