As a first approximation, why not? Behavior is generally all we have in front of us, plus any other assorted social signals. Internal mental states are invisible, as is the personal history of the individual. We might note a man beating a kitten on the sidewalk, and believe this behavior sufficient grounds to reduce this person to the category "dick", even if we remained unaware of his high intelligence, his doctoral paper on gender-inequality, and the fact his mother hates him.
Yeh, my sense as well. I'm just out of college, and can tell you people my age use AI all the time and will probably be happy with this change. There is a diehard anti-AI group, but it seemed smaller all the time over the past couple years.
No, the benefits are that something can be mass produced magnitudes faster and easier, which in turn also creates more latitude for creativity and new spaces.
It's a true state-change, which makes the argument pretty compelling IMO.
What if the braincell-vibe JS libraries turn out pretty much identical to the legacy human JS libraries, aside from being better-commented. That might lead to an existential crisis for some folks.
Clearly, some white-collar jobs will be replaced. Hard to argue against that, given it's already beginning to happen. So the question becomes what is the eventual rate of conversion and what is the subsequent economic impact over time? I don't think anyone has a credible handle on that, except to note that it won't be zero.
Yep, and the same with the internet. During the 1990s and 2000s, people kept wondering why the internet wasn't showing up in productivity numbers. Many asked if the internet was therefore just a fad or bubble. Same as some now do with AI.
It takes time for technology to show measurable impact in enormous economies. No reason why AI will be any different.
This is actually an old syndrome with technology. It takes a longt ime for the effect to be reliably measured. Famously, it took many years for the internet itself to show up in significant productivity gains (if the internet is actually useful why don't the numbers show that? - a common comment in the 1990s and 2000s). So it seems to me we're just the usual dynamic here. Productivity in trillion-dollar economies do not turn on a dime
I've got people in my social network who firmly believe that every car is, in fact, "driven by Indonesians". Apparently a widespread belief.
I've pointed out that these vehicles are quickly become more prevalent, here and (especially) in China. To which the counter is that there plenty of Indonesians to go around.
Same demographic, same experience. AI has been incredibly liberating for me. I get all sorts of things done now that before were previosly impossible for all practical purposes. Among other things, it cuts through the noise of all the layers of detail, and allows me to focus on ideas, design, and just getting stuff built asap.
I also don't get all the hand-wringing. AI is an amazing tool. Use it and be happy.
Even less do I get all the cope about it not being effective, or even useless at some level. When I read posts such as that, it feels like a different planet. Just not my experience at all.
Whenever someone tells me that AI is worthless, does nothing, scam/slop etc, I ask them about their own AI usage, and their general knowledge about what's going on.
Invariably they've never used AI, or at most very rarely. (If they used AI beyond that, this would be admission that it was useful at some level).
Therefore it's reasonable to assume that you are in that boat. Now that might not be true in your case, who knows, but it's definitely true on average.
Recently I needed to summarize about a thousand lengthy documents, and then translate those summaries into Mandarin.
I spent about a minute composing the prompt for this task, and then went for a cup of coffee. When I got back the task was done. I spot-checked the summaries and they were excellent.
I thought this was amazing and magical at the time. Am I wrong? Or is it simply the AI making me think this result was amazing and magical?
There's a financial AI bubble for sure - that's pretty much a mainstream opinion nowadays. But that's an entirely different thing from AI itself bubble-collapsing.
If you truly believe AI is simply going to collapse and disappear, you are deep in some serious cope and are going to be unpleasantly surprised.
Very broadly, AI sentence-structure and word choice is recursing back into society, changing how humans use language. The Economist recently had a piece on word usage of British Parliament members. They are adopting words and phrases commonly seen in AI.
We're embarking on a ginormous planetary experiment here.
As a first approximation, why not? Behavior is generally all we have in front of us, plus any other assorted social signals. Internal mental states are invisible, as is the personal history of the individual. We might note a man beating a kitten on the sidewalk, and believe this behavior sufficient grounds to reduce this person to the category "dick", even if we remained unaware of his high intelligence, his doctoral paper on gender-inequality, and the fact his mother hates him.