I Need AI(coryd.dev)
coryd.dev
I Need AI
https://coryd.dev/posts/2024/i-need-ai/
20 comments
Yes, I need AI, despite its current limitations and weaknesses.
And whether you realize it or not, you also stand to benefit from it.
And whether you realize it or not, you also stand to benefit from it.
I’m not equivocating AI to these inventions, but imagine if this dour, pessimistic outlook greeted electricity, the combustion engine, the car? New things aren’t immediately valuable and come with all kinds of tradeoffs. We would hardly recognize our lives without these things now and - even though they come at great cost - no serious person would have given that progress up.
It’s fair that “we” (the collective human race) have been too optimistic about new things and too sanguine about the cost. That’s why climate change is as bad as it is. That’s why having everyone plugged into social networks makes us sad.
This constant stream of pessimism that started in the 10’s for everything (tech, any institutions, the world) etc is just so..small seeming. Complaining like this makes none of these things better and the ideas expressed in this piece are far from unique. So as criticism goes it fails to even meet that definition.
So why even do it? To feel cool I guess to other people who think being pessimistic about everything is cool?
We’re coming up on a decade plus of this prevailing dour attitude and not a single bit of it has helped forestall anything. Maybe we try a new approach where we treat new things as things to be improved when they’re at the beginning (and therefore most able to be shaped). Maybe we try being cautiously optimistic?
It’s fair that “we” (the collective human race) have been too optimistic about new things and too sanguine about the cost. That’s why climate change is as bad as it is. That’s why having everyone plugged into social networks makes us sad.
This constant stream of pessimism that started in the 10’s for everything (tech, any institutions, the world) etc is just so..small seeming. Complaining like this makes none of these things better and the ideas expressed in this piece are far from unique. So as criticism goes it fails to even meet that definition.
So why even do it? To feel cool I guess to other people who think being pessimistic about everything is cool?
We’re coming up on a decade plus of this prevailing dour attitude and not a single bit of it has helped forestall anything. Maybe we try a new approach where we treat new things as things to be improved when they’re at the beginning (and therefore most able to be shaped). Maybe we try being cautiously optimistic?
If you look at the history of these inventions, you'll find that the people who've been working on them recognized the limitations at the heart of these criticisms. Even today, it's more a question of tradeoffs where we try to minimize the negative impacts. But if you look at the tech world, there is no such philosophy. It's all about growth, being barely legal, and trying to ignore the negative aspects. All the points listed in the article is true, but there's been no answer other than "give me money".
> Am I out of touch? No. It's the children who are wrong.
Maybe the reason people are pessimistic about technology is because it sucks. You note that it started in the 10's and I'm inclined to agree (the 90's were amazing for techno optimism), so what changed?
Maybe the reason people are pessimistic about technology is because it sucks. You note that it started in the 10's and I'm inclined to agree (the 90's were amazing for techno optimism), so what changed?
Opinion based: It's the focus on growth and not bettering the service. Even Apple who has been constantly focused on experience is trying to lock users in with "We know better than you" as an explanation. Windows XP, 7, and even Vista, has tried to provide an operating system so that the users can utilize their tools. I'm not against business trying to make a profit. I'm very much for it. But more often than not, engaging in a transaction with tech companies feels like doing shady deals in a dark alley, wondering if you're not selling your soul.
> I’m not equivocating AI to these inventions, but imagine if this dour, pessimistic outlook greeted electricity, the combustion engine, the car?
It did — all of those inventions had their fair share of opponents. Some of the naysayers simply didn't like change, while others had a pretty good understanding of the negative side effects of mass adoption. https://dangerousminds.net/comments/100_years_ago_some_peopl...
It did — all of those inventions had their fair share of opponents. Some of the naysayers simply didn't like change, while others had a pretty good understanding of the negative side effects of mass adoption. https://dangerousminds.net/comments/100_years_ago_some_peopl...
This list is so ridiculous, it's not even worth responding point-by-point.
> Life is short and I need AI to flood what time I have with more garbage to sift through.
Funny or not, the AI can be used to judge whether or not to read something, making the circle complete.
Funny or not, the AI can be used to judge whether or not to read something, making the circle complete.
I used AI to summarize the article for me, before deciding whether to read the whole thing. I came here for the comments instead.
This sounds like depression.
Ah, yes, smash the looms, that'll stop progress.
While I do think this is not the same, cryptocurrency fanatics used the same line on people who did not like their toy. 10 years later, the "loom smashers" of bitcoin are basically correct.
The luddite movement was a response to pay and conditions[1] not stopping industrialisation. Wouldn't be surprised if there were a few broken looms this time around as well.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/21/books/review/brian-mercha...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/21/books/review/brian-mercha...
[deleted]
Or --- let's consider what the looms do -- who benefits and who suffers, and adjust what kind of looms we make.
Lamenting is not the same as smashing.
> I need AI to make up answers to my questions.
I need AI to highlight parts of the questions I had not thought of to ask.
> I need AI to make up APIs and lower my code quality. I need it to repeatedly give me wrong answers until I realize I could have just written it myself.
I need AI to highlight where APIs aren't as obvious as they should be and to highlight what a statistically more obvious API would have looked like.
> I need AI to do even more damage to the journalism industry and create content nobody can trust.
I need AI to help summarize and evaluate stories to avoid the damage that the journalism industry has done to the wider society.
> I need AI to replace web search with answers I can't trust and with no benefit to content creators.
I need AI to answer my questions succinctly rather than being monetized to make the viewer watch for as long as possible.
... and so on
I need AI to highlight parts of the questions I had not thought of to ask.
> I need AI to make up APIs and lower my code quality. I need it to repeatedly give me wrong answers until I realize I could have just written it myself.
I need AI to highlight where APIs aren't as obvious as they should be and to highlight what a statistically more obvious API would have looked like.
> I need AI to do even more damage to the journalism industry and create content nobody can trust.
I need AI to help summarize and evaluate stories to avoid the damage that the journalism industry has done to the wider society.
> I need AI to replace web search with answers I can't trust and with no benefit to content creators.
I need AI to answer my questions succinctly rather than being monetized to make the viewer watch for as long as possible.
... and so on
Who asked for this?
C-suite-ers looking for ever more ways to cut humans out of the loop to fatten their profits.
testify! Amen!
These are valid weaknesses of current tech, but most likely to just improve with time. Networks are already above human-level on many image categorization tasks.
> to produce generic art for unimaginative creators
Personally I think novelty in art thrives when the entry barrier is low and experimentation is possible without a huge investment, which AI can help achieve. A lot of works/trends I've found interesting recently have involved some creative usage of AI (e.g: https://i.imgur.com/Jybvj0r.png - zoom out). Granted, Sturgeon's law is still in full effect.
> to pilot autonomous vehicles that injure pedestrians and take jobs from taxi drivers and truckers.
When we get to the point where they injure pedestrians at a lower rate than human drivers, then yes. We should be fighting for UBI or broader economic changes to ensure everyone (not just rightsholders like Getty/Universal) can benefit, not trying to ensure that human labor will always be required to drive trucks across the country.
> AI that can't taste to create recipes [...] that's never traveled to plan my vacation [...] that can't appreciate music to recommend music for me
If I'm actively seeking a recommendation, I don't see an inherent issue with that being done through statistical methods that take into account the preferences of many.
> I need AI to replace web search [...]
Web search has been AI for either years (using machine learning with transformers/language model embeddings) or since it's inception, depending on your definition of AI.
Same for malware scanning, spam filtering, DDoS prevention, reverse image search, language translation, fraud prevention, material/product defect detection, voice dictation, drug discovery and interaction prediction, logistics optimization, infectious disease modelling, protein folding, weather forecasting/early-warning systems, tumour segmentation, video transcription, and so on.