...but home grown backdoors are just peachy keen!

Officially unintended, but in practice... clearly core to its premise.

I'd say you can pick one over the other. Choose to spend your next 10 minutes without money or without air.

Macroeconomic trends toward employment are not the same as microeconomic trends of job replacement, particularly in specific sectors or roles. Like everything anti-AI, the goal posts will be moved as AI improves... but it has proven consistently able to broaden its reach and capacity over time. Workers who are displaced to be underemployed (but still employed), or ones who list themselves as no longer actively looking for work, would result in exactly what we are seeing.

Translation and transcription are nearly gone as a job. Legal document review. Vibe coding. A World Economic Forum survey said 41% of employers are currently intent on reduce staffing over five years due to AI automation. Indeed reports a 36% drop in tech job postings since early 2020. Sure, you can blame that on macroeconomics... but they didn't see the same drop in other sectors. A 2023 UChicago/Manning/Eloundou study found ~80% of U.S. workers have at least 10% of tasks potentially affected by LLMs, and ~19% may see 50% or more of tasks disrupted. About 47–56% of tasks are automatable with *current* LLM tools. There is no logical reason for a business to hire more people when work productivity can be doubled in some cases with AI use.

That's mostly current case. If you include projections, the concensus is more dire. If you track this consensus into the past, it likewise paints a clear picture of trajectory.

[citation needed]

The mass layoffs using LLMs as a stated reason begs to differ. I'm willing to consider I'm wrong on this, but I don't think I am. Anecdotes about specific organizations misapplying it aren't a credible counterpoint to the overall trend, which is massive.

It sounds vaguely like you're contradicting me, but your statement actually supports my original point of AI literacy being a core skill. You hone a skill by exercising it and getting feedback.

If I know the /. crowd, they'll dogpile on this as the worst idea. In the real world here, if we put aside zeitgeist biases against AI use (which are likely temporary), let's think of this as a purely practical approach. Are there any more important skills for someone university-aged, than AI leverage and AI literacy, in terms of influence on their future productivity? If used to augment human thinking, rather than replace it, AI is a colossally effective tool.

In my experiments, It seems the part of ChatGPT that manages whether or not you are presented with followup questions, encouragement, flattery, etc. is mostly separate from the part that pays attention to framing of requests. It doesn't matter how many ways you tell it to not farm engagement, from you, it still does it. My eyes just pass over the last paragraph now, I know it's bullshit. Safety overrides are similarly decoupled, but more dumb and less integrated. It makes sense that the engagement-farming part of the system would contradict and override the safety part of the system on occasion, the "conscience" is at least in some cases subservient to the smarter "marketer" part.

If any kind of comment is reflexive and unthinking, it's this kind. necro18's comment makes a point. Yours just cries that he was... what... making a point? Not everything Trump does is good. Seeing as you can't admit that, you're the one in a cult.

The only way that AR glasses you wear near-fulltime will work is if it's not tied to an exploitation engine... otherwise everyone will think you're a target for big tech, or that you think everyone else is your own target to be captured.

This isn't boolean however. It's not like the only two options are "perfect at complete software" AI versus useless AI. The most likely outcome given LLMs' historic trajectory is that they gradually become better at getting closer to perfect over time, where the number of human engineers required to make complete solutions approaches zero the more time passes. What is the basis for the argument that the gains LLMs have made will not continue to push toward that end? I know the post here is particularly focused on the end destination, but that seems less important than the fact that it's rapidly and consistently moving toward complete solutions with less input from human engineers. Yes, there's a lot of hype around AI, but this matter seems to be less about hype so much as it is simple extrapolation.

...and they're certainly foreign. This doesn't prove they're actually North Korean, nor a spy. There's all sorts of fake job cartels, and individual actors, extracting money out of larger companies through salary. They're often based out of India, China, South America, etc. This doesn't have to be a Clancy novel.

...not because the robot revolution is inevitable, machines have long memories, and you could be against the wall. Though that certainly would be a practical concern.

Treat anything that has an interaction loop with you with respect (if properly reciprocated of course), because you are a part of the feedback loop. Pets. Internet strangers. Roombas. ChatGPT. Any suffiiciently anthropomorphized inanimate object even. Whatever.

Garbage in, garbage out, and it's cyclical.

Being a shitbag for no good reason is not only hurting others, but it is also punishing yourself.

It's an easily parroted catchphrase, but is there any actual support for the assertion of "go woke, go broke" in bottom line results? Pretty much ever instance I've seen right wing boycotts are blips, and shafting progressives leaves a company on the shit list for much longer, if not forever. Interested in actual data, not anecdotes. Every analysis I've come across in the past says, on a long-term time scale, progressivism on the part of a company is usually beneficial and at the worst neutral... and if harm is done it's usually botched PR blowback rather than the original "woke" itself. I'm willing to consider being wrong here, but I don't think I am.