Comment Re:Par for the course (Score 2) 51
Free rein. As in the thing used to control a horse.
Free rein. As in the thing used to control a horse.
This is why everyone and their grandmother is all in on AI. It's adoption lags for the sole reason of "people haven't caught up with what it can do, and learned how to let it do it".
I really want you to explain why you know better than the MIT researchers quoted in the summary who determined you are wrong. Most jobs can't be replaced by current LLM, that's what they found. Why do you disagree with it?
" we CAN say what is not thinking, and we've narrowed down the problem quite a bit."
You responded by saying rocks can think. Strong example of cognitive bias.
The entirety of the industrial revolution has been finding ways to use automation to decrease the amount of human labor used to make things (i.e., increase "productivity".) The problem is that we do not have an economic system in which a society works when there is no need for human labor, and a small but rich fraction of the population owns the machinery that produces everything.
You can choose to reject much of the industrial revolution. Most Westerners are able to purchase human-crafted personal goods. From 100% re-built autos to hand-woven suits and dresses, the items are available. The price? Consumption of a fewer number of "long term" purchases, and great self-satisfaction in identifying master-craft products.
You can choose a lot of different things. The question remains, is this a viable way to structure an economic system in a world in which all of the necessities of life are produced with no (or almost no) labor?
Are you seriously proposing a world in which eight billion people are employed in producing master-crafted articles (and these master-crafted articles are "long term" purchases, hence with a small output needed.)?
As a rule, let peons and sociopaths buy mass-produced items.
Where do the peons get the money to buy mass-produced items?
A handful are master craftsmen. What about the other seven billion?
the hunger by the 1% to remove as much humanity from the workplace is sickening.
To be fair, this is nothing new. The entirety of the industrial revolution has been finding ways to use automation to decrease the amount of human labor used to make things (i.e., increase "productivity".)
The problem is that we do not have an economic system in which a society works when there is no need for human labor, and a small but rich fraction of the population owns the machinery that produces everything.
!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH