Maybe if computers and steam engines were being forced into everyday life and into use by people who do not understand how to use them appropriately or the context of any of the answers given out, the critics would also have been riled up.
As it is, computers and steam engines were prohibitively expensive and so only got used by actual experts long enough for basic use protocols to work their way into society and a slow entry into public use. Not really the same thing at all.
AI and LLMs are being forced on everyday users without much recourse and so you get a lot more problematic use both by malicious users and by people who don’t understand, which is entirely the fault of the tool and the companies making the tool.
In our company the benefits are very real. In my daily life the benefits are real
I said it has to be used properly. It’s not the fault of the technology if people don’t use it correctly.
And trying to pretend computers and communications like phones and emails weren’t available to everyone is ridiculous. Social media is available to everyone and forced on everyone, and most people don’t know how to use it. It’s not knowing how to use it that causes problems.
So it seems we agree it can augment research, which is a separate issue from whether everyone should use it for research. Baby steps.
Computers were in use for at least a decade before the first home computer was a thing and then they became accessible to the public. That’s just history. First cell phones were also prohibitively expensive and it took a while before we got to the point that everyone got one.
Social media would have been a better example to go with since that has ruined a good number of lives and allowed for genocides due to the speed at which it was deployed to people before they (or the companies) knew how to use it properly. Also, many problems were created by the companies rolling social media out (algorithms pushing towards engagement that leads to huge body issues and increases in heath problems, genocide in Myanmar allowed to be organized on the platform and assisted due to algorithms pushing conflict posts for engagement again) so that’s not a user issue, that’s very much a professional using a tool for malicious purposes due to profit.
To your point that it comes down to the individual and not the tool, well how does anyone know who is a responsible user on the internet in early interactions? That might be why a lot of people are defaulting to all users are irresponsible due to lack of proof.
The discussion is irrelevant. The tech has released, it’s accessible, and as is the case with every technological disruption, you’re not putting the toothpaste back into the tube. We can’t undo the industrial revolution or any other technological revolution.
Which is why I recommend familiarizing yourself with it, recognizing strengths and weaknesses, and upskilling. Or swim on the back side of the wave, as many others have done in the past.
It will change the world in some way, you’re not obligated to change with it.
Edit if you feel the discussion is relevant, I’d like to understand your suggestion as to how to address the challenges or concerns you raise.
Edit 2 I do have quite a few suggestions about how the technology should be regulated, and how new systems need to be created, but I’m curious what your thoughts are.
Maybe if computers and steam engines were being forced into everyday life and into use by people who do not understand how to use them appropriately or the context of any of the answers given out, the critics would also have been riled up.
As it is, computers and steam engines were prohibitively expensive and so only got used by actual experts long enough for basic use protocols to work their way into society and a slow entry into public use. Not really the same thing at all.
AI and LLMs are being forced on everyday users without much recourse and so you get a lot more problematic use both by malicious users and by people who don’t understand, which is entirely the fault of the tool and the companies making the tool.
In our company the benefits are very real. In my daily life the benefits are real
I said it has to be used properly. It’s not the fault of the technology if people don’t use it correctly.
And trying to pretend computers and communications like phones and emails weren’t available to everyone is ridiculous. Social media is available to everyone and forced on everyone, and most people don’t know how to use it. It’s not knowing how to use it that causes problems.
So it seems we agree it can augment research, which is a separate issue from whether everyone should use it for research. Baby steps.
Computers were in use for at least a decade before the first home computer was a thing and then they became accessible to the public. That’s just history. First cell phones were also prohibitively expensive and it took a while before we got to the point that everyone got one.
Social media would have been a better example to go with since that has ruined a good number of lives and allowed for genocides due to the speed at which it was deployed to people before they (or the companies) knew how to use it properly. Also, many problems were created by the companies rolling social media out (algorithms pushing towards engagement that leads to huge body issues and increases in heath problems, genocide in Myanmar allowed to be organized on the platform and assisted due to algorithms pushing conflict posts for engagement again) so that’s not a user issue, that’s very much a professional using a tool for malicious purposes due to profit.
To your point that it comes down to the individual and not the tool, well how does anyone know who is a responsible user on the internet in early interactions? That might be why a lot of people are defaulting to all users are irresponsible due to lack of proof.
The discussion is irrelevant. The tech has released, it’s accessible, and as is the case with every technological disruption, you’re not putting the toothpaste back into the tube. We can’t undo the industrial revolution or any other technological revolution.
Which is why I recommend familiarizing yourself with it, recognizing strengths and weaknesses, and upskilling. Or swim on the back side of the wave, as many others have done in the past.
It will change the world in some way, you’re not obligated to change with it.
Edit if you feel the discussion is relevant, I’d like to understand your suggestion as to how to address the challenges or concerns you raise.
Edit 2 I do have quite a few suggestions about how the technology should be regulated, and how new systems need to be created, but I’m curious what your thoughts are.
You seem to be ignoring or dismissing what I’ve said up to now, I see no reason to continue wasting my time.