So this is about the ego of professionals? As the other person explained, there are many use cases for disposable software, so it's a good thing that there's a new tech enabling non-programmer to create these on their own.
I never said there wasn’t a use case for disposable software. I only said I didn’t see gatekeeping here. Nobody is saying “don’t do it”. They are saying “be careful”.
Your example is akin to there being a very clear "No Jaywalking sign", jaywalking anyways because you see no traffic/others doing it, having a cop hit you with a ticket, and then complaining that the cop is abusing his power. No, you just got caught; and are whining.
Society has decided they don't want people doing that. If you don't like it, convince enough of your peers to change it; or accept that the society you're in doesn't agree with you. Welcome to democracy.
Exactly, jaywalking is also a made up crime that benefits some (car users) at the expense of everyone else. Just like copyright it is a bad deal for society and should be ignored whenever possible. Reclaim pedestrian spaces AND reclaim your culture!
You mean we're not there in simulating an actual human brain? Sure. But we're seeing AI work like a human well enough to be useful, isn't that the point?
Not if we’re pretending it is any inteligent. Other than that I’m all in for new utility to come out from it. But I do see a lot of tangents off technology with claims to something it is not. I have no problem of calling that out. Why do you mind? Just ignore me if Im holding your enthusiasm back, there’s plenty of sources to provide that for you.
So what? I’m not disputing that the immitation of intelligence is not good and it gets better and better every 3 months or so. But that doesn’t mean anything, even if it gets close to 99.9%. It is not real intlligence and it is quite limited in what it does. If LLMs solve logic or problems or chemistry problems it is solely not because it made a leap in understanding but because it was trained on a zillion examples. If you have a similar problem it will try to showhorn an answer without understanding where it fails. Am I saying this is useless? NO. What I’m saying is that the current approach to intelligence is missing some key ingredients. Im actually surprised so many get fooled by the hype and are ready to declare a winner. Human intelligence with it’s major flaws is still king of the hill.
How do you distinguish between the real thing and a perfect simulation of the real thing?
You seem to be engaged in faith-based reasoning at this point. If you were born in a sensory deprivation chamber you also would have no inner world, and you wouldn't have anything at all to say about solving chemistry problems.
> Im actually surprised so many get fooled by the hype and are ready to declare a winner.
Find me one person that says something like this. "AGI is here!" hype-lords exist only as a rhetorical device for the peanut gallery to ridicule.
It’s the approach that matters. When it gets to 99.9 percent it’s pretty good to be dangerous. At that point it would be hard to tell but not impossible. As soon as a new type problem comes out it will bork on you and need retraining. It’ll be a game of catch albeit an very inneficient one. Im sure we will find a more efficient method eventually but the point still stands, what we have isn’t it.
I’ll shut up when I see leaps in reasoning without specific training on all variations possible of the problem sets.
I'll shut up when I see humans get 99.9% on anything. This seems an awful lot like non-meat brain prejudice where standards that humans do not live up to at all are imposed on other things in order to be worthy of consideration
Chad's neighbor is looking pretty good at this point after Chad started enforcing retroactively added time limits that were not part of the original terms.
It is an obviously wrong approach. There are plenty of intelligent people out there, this doesn't keep them from being occasionally wrong. If you have access to the opinion of people who devoted their whole lives to the field in question, why would you seek it from an influencer that perhaps gained fame from being an authority in a couple of non-related fields?
In the last couple years there was more than ample opportunity to see how badly this approach fails, you have droves of these "public intellectuals" as TFA calls them for every crisis (COVID, energy crisis, russian wars, gaza etc.) and almost all of them are just Average Joes dishing out their BBQ-level hot takes in public. Remember all the math and physics PhDs in 2020 suddenly being genius experts on disease modelling? The same people who suddenly became experts on warfare some time in early 2022? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Yes. This was prominent when Russia invaded Ukraine. It was as if millions of people woke and decided, "I'm tired of being an infectious disease expert. Starting today, I'm a military intelligence expert!"
Thing is, none of the people i followed for COVID takes did that. They've carried on posting about infectious diseases. So i think it is possible to distinguish between these barbecue-level fake public intellectuals, and real experts, because apparently i did that.
That people do pay attention to the Tomas Pueyos of the world is a problem - but not because it's impossible not to, just because they're doing it!
You know, there is a difference between Covid denialism and saying “maybe we should have invested in a lot more air purifiers and good ventilation”. I’m butthurt about the lack of science used for understanding an airborn contagion even by our elected officials.
Scientific people who are outside of a field that has institutional scientific blindness problems are absolutely allowed to call out that bullshit when we see it. We don’t get upset when a non chiropractor says that chiropractors are hucksters. I should not be lumped in with Covid deniers for pointing out that most disease experts massive undervalued and underutilized air ventilation techniques (an example technique would be doing regular activities, like classes, outside)
The thing about being a professional contrarian is you don't need to know anything about the underlying subject, or have special access to information, you just follow the mainstream media and say the opposite.
Meanwhile I saw a friend of mine who actually is an immunology PhD get driven off Twitter in 2020 by angry mobs.
Is considering oneself an omniscient Oracle the right approach?
> If you have access to the opinion of people who devoted their whole lives to the field in question, why would you seek it from an influencer that perhaps gained fame from being an authority in a couple of non-related fields?
For myself, the domain(s) that the "influencer" has skills within is crucially important, as certain domains encompass or intersect with almost all others.
This is an interesting comment section from certain specific perspectives, but if one lacks the necessary background you could miss out on the show entirely.
Is it not reasonable to expect that the keyword "share" functions the same as the share button? I don't know the standards you have for the things you buy, but I find unacceptable that a thing I paid (handsomely) for twists my orders to share adverting to my contacts under my name, and part of the reason things are so bad is because at every valid criticism there are people defending these stuff as normal
Nowadays there are games for all tastes being released weekly, the biggest game of the year, Elden Ring, seems exactly what you're looking for. Also try indies like Slay the Spire, Into the Breach and Rollerdrome
I disagree with the premise of your answer. The statements "there are new, interesting CLI apps" and "there are more critical GUI apps nowadays" aren't mutually exclusive, actually they both make sense if you consider the number of apps out there is always increasing.
