←back to thread

Nobody knows how to build with AI yet

(worksonmymachine.substack.com)
526 points Stwerner | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.237s | source
Show context
Flatcircle ◴[] No.44616899[source]
My theory on AI is it's the next iteration of google search, a better more conversational, base layer over all the information that exists on the internet.

Of course some people will lose jobs just like what happened to several industries when search became ubiquitous. (newspapers, phone books, encyclopedias, travel agents)

But IMHO this isn't the existential crisis people think it is.

It's just a tool. Smart, clever people can do lots of cool stuff with tools.

But you still have to use it,

Search has just become Chat.

You used to have to search, now you chat and it does the searching, and more!

replies(9): >>44616955 #>>44616960 #>>44616976 #>>44617019 #>>44617060 #>>44617065 #>>44617099 #>>44620763 #>>44623695 #
aDyslecticCrow ◴[] No.44617099[source]
As search gives the answer rather than the path to it, the job of finding things out properly and writing it down for others is lost. If we let that be lost, then we will all be lost.

If we cannot find a way to redirect income from AI back to the creators of the information they rehash (such as good and honest journalism), a critical load-bearing pillar of democratic society will collapse.

The news industry has been in grave danger for years, and we've seen the consequences it brings (distrust, division, misinformation, foreign manipulation). AI may drive the last stake in its back.

It's not about some jobs being replaced; that is not even remotely the issue. The path we are on currently is a dark one, and dismissing it as "just some jobs being lost" is a naive dismissal of the danger we're in.

replies(1): >>44617375 #
JSteph22 ◴[] No.44617375[source]
I am looking forward to the "news industry" breathing its last breath. They're the ones primarily responsible for the distrust and division.
replies(3): >>44618502 #>>44623074 #>>44623715 #
1. aDyslecticCrow ◴[] No.44618502[source]
No, i fully disagree.

The economic viability to do proper journalism was already destroyed by the ad supported click and attention based internet. (and particular the way people consume news through algorithmic social media)

I believe most independent news sites have been economically forced into sensationalism and extremism to survive. Its not what they wilfully created.

Personally, i find that any news organisations that is still somewhat reputable have source of income beyond page visits and ads; Be it a senior demorgaphic that still subscribe to the paper, loyal reader base that pay for the paywall, or government sponsoring its existence as public service.

Now what if you cut out the last piece of income journalists rely on to stay afloat? We simply fire the humans and tell an AI to summarise the other articles instead, and phrase it how people want to hear it.

And thats a frightening world.