I see two problems with the AI narrative at this point
1. You can generate whatever you want via a prompt. The biggest problem with this point is it's not true and it's not even how one wants to work with AI: in a collaborative manner. Sure, this might satisfy prosumer needs - and maybe there's a large market for that, but it's not going to satisfy professional needs. Professionals have a lot of expertise and experience they bring to the table and AI can't simply discard that.
2. This really reinforces point (1) - this whole notion that AI can "replace" people. AI by itself is lowering the bar - it's not capable of producing results that are as good as the best of humans can create. What we really want is to raise the bar, and that requires collaboration between experts and AI that goes way beyond today's prompts. The most important point of this is people are still needed to produce the best results. Experienced people.
AI and robotics will end up transforming nearly every job in existence, but that doesn't mean that every job should be eliminated.
Are we just going to continue to ignore that Trump has no legal authority to do this? Such action requires legislation, not executive orders. Executive orders can't preempt state law.
Having one national set of AI laws and guidelines rather than a patchwork of AI laws and guidelines is certainly better for the AI companies - but it's up to Congress - which has representation from all the states - to create the legislation to do so.
That tracks. How long do you think we should wait for Congress to do so, considering how long AI has now been "out there"? Another 6 months? 12 months? Indefinitely?
The president has no authority to usurp the responsibility of Congress, regardless of how slow Congress moves. This is why diplomacy and diplomatic skills matter. You can't act like a two-year old and throw tantrums and expect to get things done. Donald Trump has never learned to work within the confines of the law.
You seem to know very little about WWII and how it was won. You also seem to know very little about US foreign policy after WWII - which, frankly, puts you in the same boat as the current administration. They have no clue how the US leveraged WWII to establish global dominance, and because they don’t understand that history, they have no idea how to maintain it. Here's a hint: it's not with armaments.
There's a very important lesson to learn from Google: companies say and do one thing when they're the underdog and then say and do something completely different when they're the top dog.
There's no reason to think OpenAI is any different.
And incredibly responsive compared to the operatings systems of even today. Imagine that: 30 years of progress to end up behind where we were. Human input should always run at the highest priority in the system, not the lowest.
When I first started using QNX back in 1987/88 it was distributed on a couple of 1.4MB floppy diskettes! And you could install a graphical desktop that was a 40KB distribution!
Why are we still talking about “Quantum Mechanics” when Quantum Field Theory has been the foundation of quantum theory since the mid-20th century and eliminates those paradoxes? The Standard Model, one of the most successful theories in science, is built entirely on QFT. It’s time the conversation caught up and we stop obsessing over ‘wavefunction collapse’ and ‘observer’ nonsense.
And a Yamaha MT-07 will give you more thrill for your buck! OR - you could buy a new MT-07 and a used ND2 Miata for less than the cost of a new ND2 Miata and have loads of fun!
Maybe - if you're willing to endure the dystopian nightmare of letting the less fortunate suffer and die. And if you are willing to let the less fortunate suffer and die, then I guarantee there's someone above your paygrade who thinks the same as you and will gladly watch you suffer and die.
1. You can generate whatever you want via a prompt. The biggest problem with this point is it's not true and it's not even how one wants to work with AI: in a collaborative manner. Sure, this might satisfy prosumer needs - and maybe there's a large market for that, but it's not going to satisfy professional needs. Professionals have a lot of expertise and experience they bring to the table and AI can't simply discard that.
2. This really reinforces point (1) - this whole notion that AI can "replace" people. AI by itself is lowering the bar - it's not capable of producing results that are as good as the best of humans can create. What we really want is to raise the bar, and that requires collaboration between experts and AI that goes way beyond today's prompts. The most important point of this is people are still needed to produce the best results. Experienced people.
AI and robotics will end up transforming nearly every job in existence, but that doesn't mean that every job should be eliminated.
reply