This person, presumably a developer, will never use AI. First reason, you become dependent, is a true and valid concern. But other parts of their argument are not true. It’s really good at explaining things I already know about, where journalists and Wikipedia are awful in comparison.
6
Replies
0
Boosts
Wait. This must be sarcastic.
The modern version of the encyclopedia is awful? Are you familiar with the old ones? Why not include dictionaries as well - surely those don't actually provide the full and rich definition you can easily get an llm to spit out, but of course one is the definitive source and the other is just a verbose derivative at best. At worst it could be wrong, but apparently still capable of glazing you in college English.
And the journalism? Dude, you are a journalist to me. Where in their manifesto did it say anything about an llm's power to explain? They said it makes you dependent, it's not actually intelligent, it fabricates responses, it's a con, and it's bad for the planet and people. Sure sure llm's are not actually just a fancy autocomplete, but I'm not entertaining a bunch of pedantry from the very people who are totally fine with vibes and good enough.
@llatan -- not sarcastic.
@davew I haven’t read the post, but for me, AI is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.
@davew I find it interesting to swap “AI” for “computers” and see how well the logic holds up
@davew the environmental aspects are valid, aren't they?
@davew Correction. They *say*, today, that they will never use AI. Maybe that will hold up. Maybe it won’t.
