Do not disassemble.
if we don’t adopt UBI, universal healthcare, and some amount of subsidized housing
This has been my stance for years. Automation is coming for all of us. The only reason LLMs are so controversial is that everyone in power assumed automation was coming for the blue collar jobs first, and now that it looks like white collar and creative jobs are on the chopping block, suddenly it’s important to protect people’s jobs from automation, put in safety nets, etc, etc.
Forgive my cynicism. haha
This feels like wishful thinking. Any automated system (cars, LLMs, etc) only need to be better than a human doing that job. Your example, for, um, example, ignores that self-driving trucks don’t need to take sleep breaks, or bathroom breaks, or spend time with their families, etc.
Using the assumption that this is the bottom of the curve for this LLM technology and that we still have a lot of expansion in the tech coming in a relatively short amount of time, then I would guess that any job that makes art that is “work for hire” will cease to exist, and I imagine programming is going to take a pretty big hit in available jobs. I don’t think you’ll be able to get rid of human programmers altogether, but you’ll need way fewer of them.
You shouldn’t trust ChatGPT for that, but your company could definitely spin up their own LLM and then we’re back at the problem.
One, it doesn’t seem like they’re comparable products for most uses.
ChatGPT, the user-facing website, is not comparable to google, but the technology itself is directly comparable. I am using Google’s own brand of chatbot-in-search (not bard, but probably is bard in the background) and it really does a good job taking the information from the top couple search results and compiling it together in one place for me to get the answer to my question. It seems (seems) less likely to hallucinate since it seems to be pulling information specifically from the search results; I obviously don’t accept what it outputs without clicking through to the source websites, but I could see that becoming unnecessary in the future, since so far I haven’t seen anything misrepresented or made up.
It’s like Google’s thing where they pull short answers to questions from popular websites (like wikipedia) but dialed to 11.
Trademark infringement, as opposed to copyright infringement, is all about customer confusion. If my vacuum repair shop is called 𝕏, then it’s not likely to cause customer confusion if a sandwich shop opens up and brands themselves as 𝕏.
This may be why there are so many different X trademarks, and why none of them “went after” each other.
If I remember correctly, Meta’s does pertain to social media, but as far as I know they’re not using it, so it might get messy there.
Also, in case it’s not clear. The 𝕏 is just a normal unicode character. Dude couldn’t even be bothered to pay someone to make a logo for him.
It’s mostly true, but not entirely. The data “on the internet” has to live somewhere. For instance, when you DM someone on a social media network-- would you consider that private? I assure you the content of those messages can be read by the website’s admin-users.
If you’re hosting your own non-social web service (like, personal cloud storage or something), then that is arguably private for you, but if you let someone else also use it, then it is not private for them, because you can almost certainly see their file content, having access to the server directly.
Encryption can throw all of this off; a service like Signal is private-- the admin-users of Signal can’t see your messages. Generally speaking any service that warns you that all your data will be lost if you forget your password is probably private. If they can recover your data, they have access to your data.
Edit: Better word choices.
A demographic notoriously known for being well informed. /s
I used reddit in a way where I would check out my front page, and then go to my favorite (smaller) subs to specifically look for things that wouldn’t make it to the front page. Unfortunately, I’ve not followed through with that after leaving reddit, because I’m on kbin and it’s pretty annoying to get to your followed magazines (as they’re called), and I see indications about making some of them “favorite” but I don’t think that functionality actually exists yet.
I’m sure it will get there eventually.
I was very young, 4 or 5, and I was taking a nap in the afternoon. In my dream my mom told me she would only ever make spaghetti and meatballs for dinner for the rest of my life. I liked spaghetti and meatballs, but I didn’t want to eat only that forever. My grandmother woke me up because I was crying in my sleep.
This is my earliest memory.
I have even noticed that google (my search engine of choice) has been showing reddit links further down the page; they used to be at the top for most of my searches (linux, gaming, coding type stuff). Which is appropriate, because just the other day I found a reddit post via google that had my exact issue and clicking though to it, the person who answered the question (and got a “thanks that did it” from the OP) had deleted their comments.
I think it’s overall good. A vote is no longer an anonymous action-- it’s personal, just like leaving a comment supporting or disagreeing would be. While I don’t think it would ever be appropriate to harass a person because they up/down voted something, I do think people should have to make the mental calculation about whether they’re willing to have any specific up or down vote available for anyone to see.
Upvotes mean “people should see this”. Downvotes mean “there is no reason for anyone to see this”.
Those of us on kbin can see who up/downvotes. I’ve noticed, anecdotally, that once this became more wildly known, there have been fewer downvotes that mean “I disagree”, with them mostly being used on troll posts or obviously bigoted posts.
Google’s built-in chatbot search “experiment” seems to do the same thing. It’s kind of neat.
It’s funny because lately I have been applying that quote to people being terrified of “AI”. (I hate that we use that word to describe stuff like LLMs, but that’s another topic.)
There are countless points in history where a technological advance has rendered some human labor less or no longer needed. There’s nothing to be done about it; that’s how progress works-- it’s why we’re not mostly farmers anymore.
The solution to technology rendering human labor less or no longer needed is for society to divorce the need to work from living a comfortable life. It’s certainly not to try and hold back or eliminate the technology solely to protect human labor.
Don’t be terrified of “AI”.
Right about what? Using whataboutism to spread russian propaganda?
I kind of get what you’re saying, but what you might be missing is that we are long past the point where politics is just a disagreement on how to achieve the same general goal. The mainstream GOP is full on pro-bigotry, anti-freedom, and if not openly fascist, they sure do seem to do a lot of fascist-like things. This is not hyperbole.
Additionally, money is (and always has been) the lever to obtain power, so knowingly giving money (directly or indirectly) to a person who will use that money to promote or assist these kind of beliefs becomes a moral question, not a financial one. You may not want to believe it is so, but it is so.
How did that turn out? haha
I have two that have stuck with me most my adult life-- and I find that they apply frequently.
I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.
-- Judge Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty Speech, 1944
I’ve come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
- Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
- Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
- Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
-- Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt, 2002
Isn’t this functionally the same thing? What happens to smaller companies in this hypothetical? Are you not assuming that they get pushed out of the market shortly thereafter?
I am assuming this. I am assuming that we’re at the bottom of this technology’s sigmoid curve, there is going to be a ton of growth in a relatively short amount of time. I guess we’ll have to wait to see which one of us has a better prediction.
You have described the state of LLMs right now. Programming languages seem like a perfect fit for a LLM; they’re extremely structured and meticulously (well, mostly) defined. The concepts and algorithms used not overly complex for a LLM. There doesn’t need to be much in the way of novel creativity create solutions for standard use cases. The biggest difficulty I’ve seen is just getting the prompting clear enough. I think a majority of the software engineering field is on the chopping block, just like the “art for hire” crowd. People pushing the limits of the fields will be safe but that’s a catch 22, isn’t it? If low-level entry is impossible, how does one get to be a high-level professional?
And even if we take your [implied] stance that this is the top of the S-curve and LLMs aren’t going to get much better-- it will still be a useful tool for human programmers to increase productivity and reduce available jobs.