It’s probably going to be a generational change. I’m very interested to see what happens with it in twenty years. The kids growing up with it today will have some interesting ideas what to do with it, I think.

I hope to see more local models and more efficient ones purpose built for specific use cases. But we have to get to the other side of the hype and hate.

Tom Baker is the version of The Doctor I’m most familiar with. It was a weird show that I had to watch on PBS and no one else watched it. It was obviously a very British show with a low budget but it had heart and told interesting stories like the classic science fiction I grew up reading.

I’ve never gotten into any of the reboots. I’m sure they were fine but my family doesn’t want to watch them. Too different.

I don’t have enemies. I don’t really have friends, either. I maybe could use one or the other but I don’t have time in my life for both.

Sounds like it has a lot in common with software development…

I haven’t seen anything to suggest we are on any kind of path to AGI. LLMs are a dead end, but a dead end sucking up all the oxygen in the room.

Probably a good thing because I don’t see any world in which AGI isn’t an existential threat.

He’s not selling anything specific and not to end users. You’re talking about something completely different. The way Sam and investors and corporate customers talk about AI is pretty misleading, but it’s not misleading users. No one looks at AI replacing CSRs and inventing new sciences, whatever the fuck that means, and jumps to it can unerringly diagnose a rash. And even if they did, the bot explicitly says not to trust it.

If some dirt farmer asks it how to avoid losing his family farm in a drought and takes ChatGPT’s advice to plant chocolate chips and loses the farm anyway, I suggest that’s a user error.

They don’t. They say we made this thing, see what you can do with it. They also put disclaimers on ChatGPT to say not to rely on it to be correct.

One can infer from that, that any use for which you are relying on accuracy is incorrect use. Which is why it’s critical to have any output filtered through a domain-capable human.

A pencil is a tool with a pretty wide open purpose within the writing ecosystem. It can be used to document history or remember a phone number or draw a picture.

You can also stab yourself in the eye with it or plan a murder.

That’s obviously bullshit but he’s not telling users they can develop time travel or something. That’s the distinction I would draw. He’s selling investment. That’s not where the end users that are misusing ChatGPT are at.

My observation is that largely it’s the downstream AI consumers who repackage it irresponsibly. That said, I don’t hang on the words of Sam Altman and it’s certain they are pushing the idea that AI is more capable than it is, but mostly what I see is them saying they built this thing and it does neat stuff and it can probably do neat stuff for you, use your imagination.

I believe a lot of the folks developing these tools would be horrified at the irresponsible ways vendors and end users are using it.

I have not seen OpenAI advertise ChatGPT as capable of medical diagnosis or therapy or anything like that. If you want therapy, and you can’t afford better — because I think we can agree that AI is terrible at it, then there should be a therapy app with explicit safety controls.

The problem is someone created a screwdriver which is handy for lots of screwdriver shaped purposes and someone is trying to carve a ham.

Does OpenAI claim ChatGPT is fit for those purposes? No.

The concrete itself will happily mix into your pancakes.

They put lives at risk the same way every single product at your local home improvement store does. When you misuse a tool for a purpose it wasn’t intended and isn’t good at, you’re going to get bad results.

This is an issue for the educational system, not the legal system.

Lot of wisdom here. Well fucking said.

I am a tech lead with 10y experience

That’s a hell of a thing. Took me thirty.

We might not agree on the rest, but we can certainly agree on your last point.

If Lemmy were my entire window to the world, I’d be worried about an echo chamber. It’s not though, so I keep it as a safe place. I don’t owe anyone my attention just because they have feels about something I say or we comment on the same boards.

Just a counterpoint. Your way is perfectly valid.

Blocking is so easy, though, and so freeing. When I learned to embrace blocking this became a far more chill place.

Names come and go. Givessomefucks is the only one that comes to mind. Mostly I just respond to the words. My client shows an upvote total. I guess I start to recognize names when someone states running that upvote total up.

Words are more important than identity. That’s why I’m on anonymous social media in the first place. I might be a cantankerous asshole in one thread because mood, and the next I’m offering advice with authenticity and lived experience. Those two posts might as well be written by different people.

I don’t buy into celebrity, no matter how small.

I’m not writing policy. That makes all of my solutions to fixing the world brilliant. And pointless.