←back to thread

446 points walterbell | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
BrenBarn ◴[] No.43577934[source]
It's become almost comical to me to read articles like this and wait for the part that, in this example, comes pretty close to the beginning: "This isn’t a rant against AI."

It's not? Why not? It's a "wake-up call", it's a "warning shot", but heaven forbid it's a rant against AI.

To me it's like someone listing off deaths from fentanyl, how it's destroyed families, ruined lives, but then tossing in a disclaimer that "this isn't a rant against fentanyl". In my view, the ways that people use and are drawn into AI usage has all the hallmarks of a spiral into drug addiction. There may be safe ways to use drugs but "distribute them for free to everyone on the internet" is not among them.

replies(12): >>43577939 #>>43577996 #>>43578036 #>>43578046 #>>43578066 #>>43578099 #>>43578125 #>>43578129 #>>43578304 #>>43578770 #>>43579016 #>>43579042 #
overgard ◴[] No.43578125[source]
Well I mean, nitpick, but Fentanyl is a useful medication in the right context. It's not inherently evil.

I think my biggest concern with AI is its biggest proponents have the least wisdom imaginable. I'm deeply concerned that our technocrats are running full speed at AGI with like zero plan for what happens if it "disrupts" 50% of jobs in a shockingly short period of time, or worse outcomes (theres some evidence the new tariff policies were generated with LLMs.. its probably already making policy. But it could be worse. What happens when bad actors start using these things to intentionally gaslight the population?)

But I actually think AI (not AGI) as an assistant can be helpful.

replies(4): >>43578211 #>>43578224 #>>43578939 #>>43579312 #
brain5ide ◴[] No.43578224[source]
Are we talking about structural things or about individual perspective things?

At individual perspective - AI is useful as a helper to achieve your generative tasks. I'd argue against analytic tasks, but YMMV.

At the societal perspective, e.g. you as individual can not trus anything the society has produced, because it's likely some AI generated bullshit.

Some time ago, if you were not trusting a source, you could build your understanding by evaluating a plurality of sources and perspectives and get to the answer in a statistical manner. Now every possible argument can be stretched in any possible dimension and your ability to build a conclusion has been ripped away.

replies(1): >>43578318 #
walterbell ◴[] No.43578318[source]
> build your understanding by evaluating a plurality of sources and perspectives and get to the answer in a statistical manner

A few thousand years of pre-LLM primary sources remain available for evaluation by humans and LLMs.

replies(2): >>43578456 #>>43578915 #
coryrc ◴[] No.43578456{3}[source]
You and I remember pre-AI famous works. "Hey, I'm pretty sure Odysseus took a long time to get home". Somebody goes and prints 50 different AI-generated versions of the _Odyssey_, how are future generations supposed to know which is real and which is fake?
replies(2): >>43578548 #>>43578718 #
noosphr ◴[] No.43578548{4}[source]
This is literally how the Odyssey was passed down for the 2000 years before the printing press was invented.

Every work had multiple versions. All versions were different. Some versions were diametrically opposed to others.

Have a look at Bible scholarship to see just _how_ divergent texts can become by nothing more than scribe errors.

replies(2): >>43578661 #>>43586312 #
samtheprogram ◴[] No.43578661{5}[source]
99.9999999% sure that was their point? Why else would they bring up that particular work?
replies(1): >>43586235 #
burnished ◴[] No.43586235{6}[source]
Because they thought it was an ancient and unchanging text.
replies(1): >>43586615 #
1. coryrc ◴[] No.43586615{7}[source]
No, but it was a bad example because I was thinking only of the authorship point of view.

A better example would have been the complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir. We're pretty sure it's real; there might still be people alive that remember it being discovered. But in a hundred years, people with gen AI have created museums of fake artifacts but plausible, can future people be sure? A good fraction of the US population today believes wildly untrue things about events happening in real time!

replies(1): >>43597129 #
2. burnished ◴[] No.43597129[source]
Ah, thank you for clarifying and correcting!