I feel about ai like i feel about cars. 90% of the idiots out there drive really poorly, but that doesn’t mean responsible people are smart to never drive a car. Same with AI, overwhelming majority of people are using AI incorrectly, i.e. recklessly dangerously, but that doesn’t mean responsible people should never use it.
I like the car analogy. I never had a car, and the last time I called to use one, I had had eye surgery and needed to get home.
There are many aspects of the analogy that match quite well:
some types of motor vehicles like ambulances and trucks are clearly useful but most uses are not
cars have a massive negative environmental impact (220 grams of CO2 per every kilometer, not to speak of toxic air pollution, photochemical smog, and particulate matter that appears to cause dementia)
especially in cities, car feel much faster than they effectively are
cars destroy cities and walkable communities, to such a degree that European cities like Paris come to new life after restricting cars
cars are extremely convenient, such that they become an addiction quickly, and after a while you don’t even believe you can’t walk two miles on your feet. You even lose your sense of walking distances.
cars massively increase the daily distance you travel, because of Marchetti’s constant (humans have a time budget of one hour travel a day), which changes your whole daily routines, leads to more distant work places, urban sprawl in housing, and after a while you are really physically dependent on them
using cars is bad for your own health because it leads to lack of exercise, which leads to multiple common and deadly diseases
cars do actually cost a lot of money which is sucked up by a corrupt industry and even more corrupt fossil fuel producers
I partially agree. If forced by stupid management results would clearly be worse.
Also people using LLM as search engines have a lot to do with internet entshitification. Surfing the web have become so obnoxious that asking an LLM the answer to something is easier.
This have two obvious conclusions from my point of view. First is that the best scenario would be a not entshitified internet. Second is that when LLMs, specially the big ones owned by big companies, get their dose of entshitification, users will be back on square one of not having a good way of extracting information out of this massive sea of information that we have built and which should be much easier to navigate.
Pretty good analogy because health damage from cars don’t just come from accidents, which are terrible and tragically visible, but from pollution which is a lot less visible yet kills even more.
That specifically might not on its own, but there are also a lot of other factors that definitely mean responsible people don’t drive. Even local LLMs map neatly onto EVs - they’re not as polluting day to day, but still require plenty of environmental damage to be built.
I feel about ai like i feel about cars. 90% of the idiots out there drive really poorly, but that doesn’t mean responsible people are smart to never drive a car. Same with AI, overwhelming majority of people are using AI incorrectly, i.e. recklessly dangerously, but that doesn’t mean responsible people should never use it.
I like the car analogy. I never had a car, and the last time I called to use one, I had had eye surgery and needed to get home.
There are many aspects of the analogy that match quite well:
The problem with “LLM requires skill to use correctly.” is that LLM’s are not being sold as a skill but rather the end of skill.
marketing departments have always lied
That is true but does not pertain to what I wrote.
To be more precise, LLMs’ present valuation in the market is not based on their being a skill so much as the end of skill.
Not really true.
LLM valuation in the market is aimed at several things, making unskilled people appear skilled is the smallest of them.
The most valuable position in the market right now is as a substitute of search enginesm
The second most valuable position in the market is as a tool to speed up work for already skilled people.
And I would argue that the third most valuable position in the market is a bot tool to substitute human iteration.
Unskilled people doing slop might be the most visible face of AI as it’s very annoying but it’s a minority of it’s market, just a very loud minority.
I perceive them as having equal value. In each case the technology is forced on users in a top-down way and results in worse outcomes.
I don’t expect you’ll agree; that’s not the same as what I wrote being “Not really true.”
I partially agree. If forced by stupid management results would clearly be worse.
Also people using LLM as search engines have a lot to do with internet entshitification. Surfing the web have become so obnoxious that asking an LLM the answer to something is easier.
This have two obvious conclusions from my point of view. First is that the best scenario would be a not entshitified internet. Second is that when LLMs, specially the big ones owned by big companies, get their dose of entshitification, users will be back on square one of not having a good way of extracting information out of this massive sea of information that we have built and which should be much easier to navigate.
Pretty good analogy because health damage from cars don’t just come from accidents, which are terrible and tragically visible, but from pollution which is a lot less visible yet kills even more.
That specifically might not on its own, but there are also a lot of other factors that definitely mean responsible people don’t drive. Even local LLMs map neatly onto EVs - they’re not as polluting day to day, but still require plenty of environmental damage to be built.