I see no reason to believe that using a Trained #MOLE as a self-study aid is any more effective than using a web browser and a decent search engine. Or a Q+A site like StackExhange. But guess which one uses more resources to achieve that same result?
I'd go further and say it's less effective than working your way through HowTo books or online courses written by experienced educators, in collaboration with subject matter experts. Which can be as simple as PDF or a static website.
(3/3)
You could probably get a Trained #MOLE to spit out blueprints for a bridge, and build it. But there's the reason we have architects and civil engineers, who do years of training before they're allowed to build a bridge. Anyone can build a bridge, but it take specialist knowledge and experience to build a bridge that doesn't fall down when crossed, or shake itself to pieces in a strong wind.
"This gap will likely narrow as tools improve. But for now, the most pragmatic approach is to use AI to accelerate learning, not replace it entirely."
#AddyOsmani, 2024
https://addyo.substack.com/p/the-70-problem-hard-truths-about
There are much more effective learning aids already available. Also Osmani sneaks in a huge and highly questionable assumption; that more #MOLE Training will result in improved tools. There's good reason to believe that the current tools are the best that can be produced with generative models.
(1/3)
In my Sept, 2024 blog piece on #MOLE Training I quoted David Chapman, a PhD in AI research. He sums up this unjustified optimism nicely in his book #BetterWithoutAI;
"Most AI researchers think AI will have overall positive effects. However, this seems to be based only on a vague faith in the value of technological progress in general. It doesn’t involve worked-out ideas about desirable futures in which AI systems are enormously more powerful than current ones."
https://betterwithout.ai/only-you-can-stop-an-AI-apocalypse
(2/3)
All of those points assume AI will be implemented without compliance with the #Bletchley and #Seoul Declarations...
... Which at the moment is kinda true... But all major Governments (mostly) have signed them.
... #regulateAI
I see no reason to believe that using a Trained #MOLE as a self-study aid is any more effective than using a web browser and a decent search engine. Or a Q+A site like StackExhange. But guess which one uses more resources to achieve that same result?
I'd go further and say it's less effective than working your way through HowTo books or online courses written by experienced educators, in collaboration with subject matter experts. Which can be as simple as PDF or a static website.
(3/3)
Further down, the hype train reaches top speed;
"But look at newer features like Anthropic's computer use in Claude, or Cline's ability to automatically launch browsers and run tests. These aren't just glorified autocomplete - they're actually understanding tasks and taking initiative to solve problems."
#AddyOsmani, 2024
https://addyo.substack.com/p/the-70-problem-hard-truths-about
You don't need a Trained MOLE to automate that. It's a simple linear task that can be automated using standard scripting methods.
(1/2)
This isn't even glorified autocomplete, it's glorified continuous integration. Proposing this as a use for a Trained #MOLE is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem.
(2/2)
