Most feel-good pieces on AI make the same mistake, which is looking at where the ball is and not where it's going. If progress were to halt today, this article would be relevant and I'd upvote it.
But since the richest and least trustworthy people on earth are on track to make an ultraintelligent thinking machine, the risks I'm worried about are: killing most jobs, concentrating most wealth, and putting ourselves at risk of literal extinction. All I could think when reading this was, "this person really did not think this all the way through." I'm sorry.
Wealth is already concentrated. They’re just coming for the top 10% that affect the software devs now since they’ve taken everything else. You talked to anyone with an “unskilled” job in the last few years?
> Most feel-good pieces on AI make the same mistake, which is looking at where the ball is and not where it's going.
Humans have a bad track record predicting where a technology is going.
I do not know where AI heads in the next 5-25 years (I have my hypotheses, but they are likely off, too), but I see a useful tool that allows many people to experiment with and try things that they could not before and I do not see why should I subscribe to the doomer view.
As far as the moral character of the leaders: that's common, too. Many luminaries were, based on recollections, seen as pretty bad human beings and that didn't run off on their inventions. My 2c.
> are on track to make an ultraintelligent thinking machine, the risks I'm worried about are: killing most jobs, concentrating most wealth, and putting ourselves at risk of literal extinction. All I could think when reading this was, "this person really did not think this all the way through." I'm sorry.
While two out of those three risks do not require anything "ultraintelligent", for killing most jobs it's worth remembering that their track is an appropriation of intelligence, and the speedups happen where it's easiest to measure more than where the tracks correspond to economic value.
Unfortunately, this has the opposite effect for safety, and can still do a lot of wealth concentration even if it doesn't end all jobs.
you'd think so, but there's something you lose in terms of neural pathways, through some weird effect. I find that anything I physically write down sticks much better in my brain.
Except for sketching out ideas and designs for woodworking. Or jotting down any kind of quick idea I have when I am on the road (frequently). Or sketching an idea for a screen print or art design. Or making notes about what groceries to pick up the next time the wife and I head to the grocery store.
I haven't used paper for anything since I graduated college 10 years ago. Excluding education where I only used paper because I was forced to, closer to 20 years. I would much rather open a text editor or a spreadsheet on PC.
I did use to review the AI slop code on paper, it was extremely effective in quality, but extremely slow as a feedback loop: https://imgur.com/a/ZRg5x7t
I am currently working on combining all of that into a code review tool to more effectively review slo.. AI pull requests. I am not sure if people here would be interested, but basically the idea is to not use the keyboard anymore to type your annotations, but only use a tablet / pen and voice (with transcription), so that code review is much more ergonomic. So you can "paint" on your code, make annotations, have a "physical" layout of your code, architecture overlays, etc. and then agents re-edit the code until it is what you want.
AI won't replace old tech that works, is the point.
Paper is one such.
I'm less sure keyboards will stay to the same degree. My thinking was always the bottleneck while programming, so even though I can talk faster than I type, I couldn't solve problems faster than I type. But I can now.
So I'm opting for speech-to-text when the office space allows it, and looking into steno (stenography) keyboards, or perhaps building a steno overlay on my custom split keyboard to go from 80-100WPM to 200+WPM.
Clearly the vibe du jour seems to be to just throw AI at any and all problems. And sometimes there are better, simpler and more straightforward solutions
But since the richest and least trustworthy people on earth are on track to make an ultraintelligent thinking machine, the risks I'm worried about are: killing most jobs, concentrating most wealth, and putting ourselves at risk of literal extinction. All I could think when reading this was, "this person really did not think this all the way through." I'm sorry.
Humans have a bad track record predicting where a technology is going.
I do not know where AI heads in the next 5-25 years (I have my hypotheses, but they are likely off, too), but I see a useful tool that allows many people to experiment with and try things that they could not before and I do not see why should I subscribe to the doomer view.
As far as the moral character of the leaders: that's common, too. Many luminaries were, based on recollections, seen as pretty bad human beings and that didn't run off on their inventions. My 2c.
While two out of those three risks do not require anything "ultraintelligent", for killing most jobs it's worth remembering that their track is an appropriation of intelligence, and the speedups happen where it's easiest to measure more than where the tracks correspond to economic value.
Unfortunately, this has the opposite effect for safety, and can still do a lot of wealth concentration even if it doesn't end all jobs.
They are on track to kill themselves with their decisions.
Actually, I use paper every day.
There is some science on this, how reading on paper activates different brain waves than a screen and how the physical layout of pages activates spatial memory recall: https://pg.ucsd.edu/publications/Papercode-printing-code-on-... and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L-TEaM0pn3IZjrvQMHUDDCtB...
I am currently working on combining all of that into a code review tool to more effectively review slo.. AI pull requests. I am not sure if people here would be interested, but basically the idea is to not use the keyboard anymore to type your annotations, but only use a tablet / pen and voice (with transcription), so that code review is much more ergonomic. So you can "paint" on your code, make annotations, have a "physical" layout of your code, architecture overlays, etc. and then agents re-edit the code until it is what you want.
Paper is one such.
I'm less sure keyboards will stay to the same degree. My thinking was always the bottleneck while programming, so even though I can talk faster than I type, I couldn't solve problems faster than I type. But I can now.
So I'm opting for speech-to-text when the office space allows it, and looking into steno (stenography) keyboards, or perhaps building a steno overlay on my custom split keyboard to go from 80-100WPM to 200+WPM.