I think there's some nuance here that a lot of these convos dont make plain - are we talking about just using 'ai' in the military broadly, or are we specifically talking about fully autonomous weapons systems?
In the former case, I would agree with you completely, I havent heard any arguments beyond 'I dont like working on military stuff'. But if we're talking fully autonomous weapons, that's a different story. And further muddying the waters is the fact that the former is obviously a step along the path to the latter.
> I am
also dealing with a number of emergencies, including a lockdown at the Minneapolis
courthouse because of protest activity, the defiance of several court orders by ICE, and
the illegal detention of many detainees by ICE (including, yesterday, a two-year
old).[1]
Federal district judges in mpls are releasing dozens of illegally detained individuals per day. You may not be hearing about it, but it is absolutely happening. Your not hearing about is part of the problem.
> It used to be that a well-written document was a proof-of-work that the author thought things through (or at least spent some time thinking about it).
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The problem isn't so much that people can do bad work faster than ever now, its that we can no longer rely on the same heuristics for quickly assessing a given piece of work. I dont have a great answer. But I do still think it has something to do with trust and how we build relationships with each other.
This is a trust issue. If someone I trust hands me a big pr, I focus on the important details. If someone i dont trust hands me a big pr, i just reject it and ask them to break the problem down further. I dont waste my time on this kind of thing, regardless of whether it was hand written or generated.
Nowhere in here does it indicate that the generated plan was wrong or broken. I dont care if you use ai to write. I care if you write well. If the author trusted the other person, then it shouldn't matter. If the author didn't trust the other person, then they'd have to validate their output anyway. Granted the tech allows people I dont trust to generate a lot more bs, a lot faster. But i just reject and move on with my life in that case. I am no ai booster but a lot people are expressing distaste for tools when they should be expressing distaste for fools.
ok but how does it work though? Is this seriously just passing the titles to some llm with a prompt like 'roast this'? is it reading the actual content of the link as well?
I'm curious how you would respond to the folks who are concerned that asking people to 'just do the work' in an interview are asking for unpaid labor, and that's unfair?
this is the key idea right here. LLMs are not replacing good coders, they're electric yak shavers that we should all learn how to use. The value add is real, and incremental, not revolutionary.
I really like this, this is the perfect size project for exploring a new piece of tech. I especially like that you implemented an actual cli and not just tests.
This. No one, not even the very wicked, get up in the morning and think 'Im going to go make some old, bad stuff, because I'd like to decrease the amount of The Good in the world.' This article reads like the height of narcissistic navel-gazing, with absolutely zero nontrivial insight.
In the former case, I would agree with you completely, I havent heard any arguments beyond 'I dont like working on military stuff'. But if we're talking fully autonomous weapons, that's a different story. And further muddying the waters is the fact that the former is obviously a step along the path to the latter.