I never said AI = bad. AI is much broader and contains worthwhile and non-plagiarized approaches.
If it’s worth doing, do it properly.
I never said AI = bad. AI is much broader and contains worthwhile and non-plagiarized approaches.
If it’s worth doing, do it properly.
They need to lose their licenses.
Everyone anywhere using one on the job should be fired, but medical personnel is endangering people.
You used a Germanism. Do you have a Betriebsrat?
Also, don’t make introversion your entire personality.
Or they are geodesics in non-euclidian space.
I… don’t know what this implies.
This seems to be a rather weak argument for a strong position. Languages as well as nationalities share with gender that their meaning is at least partially (maybe fully?) derived from shared understanding of the thing itself. The structure of this argument here would only extend to genders already understood by the recipient - often progress already, as accepting binary trans people already is something many people fail, but if this was supposed to be a wider argument… eh.
“LLMs going mainstream is a new thing so social codes relative to them haven’t had time to solidify.”
Good argument for going max aggro, but I’d still use restraint here, despite the desperate need to establish norms of running people out of town with thrown wasp nests when they use an LLM.
Shorter: “Minds are computers” can imply views of (1) minds as simpler than they are, (2) computers as potentially very complex and general, or (3) both.
1 and 3 are not only wrong but also bad.
It seems to me like when you say “human minds are computational things” you can mean this in several ways that can be roughly categorized by what your ideas of “minds” and of “computational things” are.
You can use “computational things” to be an extremely expansive category, capable of containing vast complexity but potentially completely impractical for fully recreating on a drawing board. In this use, the word user would often agree with the statement but it wouldn’t belittle the phenomenon that is the human mind.
Or you can use “human minds” in a way that sees them as something relatively simple - kinda like a souped up 80486 computer, maybe. Nothing all too irreplaceable or special, in any case. Maybe an Athlon can be sentient and sapient! Most who say it like that would probably disagree with the sentiment because it small-mindedly minimizes people.
Then there’s the tech take version, which somehow does both: “Computation is everything and everything is computation, but also I have no appreciation for complexity nor a conceptualization of what all I don’t see about the human mind”. Within the huge canvas of what can be conceived of if you think in computation terms, they opt for tiny crayon scribbles.
You’re mad that someone investigates and elaborates on causes of why using llm marketing bullshit is a bad idea? Weird.
Hey now, LLMs are AI!
… So is the code that makes those ghosts in s super mario approach you when you look away and cower when you look at them.
AI != LLM