Thanks. Very interesting. I’m not sure I see such a stark contrast pre/post 9-11. However, the idea that the US public’s approach to the post-9-11 conflict would have an influence makes sense and isn’t something I’d ever have considered on my own.
Thanks. Very interesting. I’m not sure I see such a stark contrast pre/post 9-11. However, the idea that the US public’s approach to the post-9-11 conflict would have an influence makes sense and isn’t something I’d ever have considered on my own.
Me too, but I’d put Usenet in there before Slashdot.
Because most people aren’t technical enough to understand there are alternatives, particularly if those alternatives involve removing a scary label telling you not to.
The South. Just below Indiana, the middle finger of the South. And I say this as a Hoosier for much of my life.
Thanks. Based on some of the other answers, particularly in https://sh.itjust.works/comment/12511, I know understand better.
I appreciate everyone helping to explain some pretty basic questions in such detail.
And the article content posted is just an excerpt. The rest of the article focuses on how AI can improve the efficiency of workers, not replace them.
Ideally, you’ve got a learned individual using AI to process data more efficiently, but one that is smart enough to ignore or toss out the crap and knows to carefully review that output with a critical eye. I suspect the reality is that most of those individuals using AI will just pass it along uncritically.
I’m less worried about employees scared of AI and more worried about employees and employers embracing AI without any skepticism.