I think we just said the same thing.

Thanks, you cited some sources! :-)

Your first source does discuss some negative effects of AI use, but then it says this:

So yes, even your own source says that AI makes you more productive.

Your other source focuses more sharply on the effect of AI on our "critical thinking." I don't deny this. It's like GPS makes us less able to navigate without GPS. But who wants to go back to a world before GPS? Just about nobody. And why should we? In a world with GPS, is knowing how to navigate without GPS a critical skill? Probably not.

Likewise, in a world with AI, being able to perform tasks without AI is maybe not so important.

Whatever your opinion, AI is here, and it's not going anywhere.

You haven't actually cited anything.

And how exactly would the OS know what the "affected area" was, or that the issue was bad memory in the first place? It could just as well be a bad controller, or an overheated chip, or a poorly-seated RAM chip, or any of a million other things.

No one *was* insulted, but you tried, by suggesting that only morons think LLMs are useful. If you think AI is used mainly be cheating or lazy students, you haven't been paying attention. As for productivity, you didn't read a thing I said about the things I've used it to do. Those cases were significant productivity boosts.

It sounds like this guy was being obnoxious, glasses or not. It's not even clear that this woman intentionally broke his smart glasses, or knew they were smart glasses, or that the smart glasses had anything to do with the incident.

I don't see how the infrastructure investments will be any different. In the dot-com boom, a lot of infrastructure was built that was soon discarded, like modem technology and server farms that quickly became outdated. Yes, the coming AI bust will result in similar hardware waste, but I don't see it as significantly different.

As for lying...AI lies to you in predictable ways, much like politicians and advertisements lie to you in predictable ways. We know that advertisements will routinely lie about the degree of effectiveness or ease of a solution. But the advertisement might still be useful in the sense that it makes us aware of a product or solution we previously didn't know about. As for AI, we know that AI is terrible at citing sources accurately. Therefore, sources cited by AI should be treated with skepticism. But in other areas, it's quite useful.

I can ask AI, for example, to write me a SQL query that pulls data elements out of an XML or JSON field--a task that is notoriously difficult in SQL using arcane and inflexible syntax--and it does a pretty good job of supplying useful and correct code. I don't have to go study the docs to see how it's done. I can instead just test the query and confirm that the data is correct.

Similarly, I recently asked GitHub Copilot to convert a web app from Bootstrap 4 to Bootstrap 5--a task which required updating hundreds of style names--and it did it quite well, saving me literally hours of time. Doing it by hand would have required me to look for each obsolete style and find the name name for it. The accuracy of the update was easy to assess.

Your point of view doesn't seem very credible when all you have to back it up is insults. What it does communicate, is that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

The objective of becoming more trustworthy? Perhaps.

With humans, there is a greater chance of confession leading to more trustworthiness, because a human doesn't *want* to keep confessing the same things. AI has no such "wants."

As LLMs do, when prompted, it will *hallucinate* "confessions" to lies and hallucinations, even ones that aren't real.

The consistent pattern throughout history, is that new technologies tend to make people better off, not poorer.

Automation and mechanization has replaced 95% of human farm workers. It's replaced 90% of factory workers. It's replaced 99% of blacksmiths. And yet, people today are better off than they were 50, 100, or 200 years ago. Yes, even the poor among us are better off than the poor were in those days. The "good old days" weren't.

AI is the next wave of automation and mechanization. There's no reason to believe it will produce a different result than all the previous waves.

I agree completely that it's absurd to suggest that AI will "replace humanity." But that doesn't mean AI (or LLMs specifically) isn't useful.

AI is a tool. Used well, while understanding its limitations, can be a tremendous time-saver. And time is money.

AI will certainly provide some investors with a great return, while other, less savvy investors, will lose their shirts. But AI is here to stay, it's not going to suddenly disappear because everybody realizes it's a scam. Just as with the dot-com bubble in the 1990s, the AI bubble will burst, leaving behind the technologies that are actually useful.

To try the Metaverse, I think you'd be required to...log in to facebook. That's a no go for me!

You must be an executive. Executives always think it "shouldn't be difficult" to develop whatever thing they want to develop.

Meta wouldn't have bought Oculus for $2 billion if they believed it would only cost a "few million" to develop their own competitor.

It could also be that Windows didn't allocate memory in the same pattern as Linux, and by chance didn't happen to need to use the defective chips. I've certainly seen Windows BSODs due to bad memory, so I know it's capable of detecting such problems.