I agree with the fact that LLM's inherently lack agency and I think it's a pretty subtle distinction but it's an extremely consequential one. AI cannot self-initiate anything, they are only able to produce an output as a response to input. The impetus for their action is always an idea that came from a humans mind, no matter how indirect that is. That much is inarguable imo, the possible point of contention is whether the same can be said about humans, and that's a very philosophical question but I am very convinced it's not the case(I won't get into my own philosophical beliefs here).
Despite the fact that the distinction is very philosophical, I think the implications are very practical. Without it's own initiating energy everything an AI produces will be a response to an input, and it's response will be constrained by the bounds implied by that input. The specific type of dialectic between the programmer and the person giving requirements, which leads to creating the ACTUAL requirements, is impossible to happen with an AI, because a dialectic requires two opposed agents/forces while an AI is incapable of being an opposing force because it is only a derivative or product of whatever force is providing it's input; basically, it is constrained inside a box defined by the input it is given, and precisely what is needed for true synthesis(new ideas/thoughts, as opposed to an analytic breaking down of the already proposed ideas) is a whole separate box to interact with the one defined by the input.
My explanation is extremely abstract and will probably only make sense to someone who almost agrees with me already, but that's the best I could do. I'm sure there is a more down-to-earth way to explain this but I guess my understanding isn't good enough to find it yet. In my defense I do think this particular issue of agency in AI is one of the most subtle and philosophical problems in the world right now that actual has practical implications.
you gotta explain why the analogy is applicable, otherwise I could do the same thing and say "I don't understand why so many people are convinced that hovercars won't replace automobiles one day." Infinite analogies could be made to support any conclusion, they aren't worth anything without reasoning(implied or explicit) for why your analogy is particularly relevant compared to others.
Tbh I am completely unsure about the AI Programmer debate, I don't have the knowledge of the AI landscape to make an informed decision. For that reason I do what I often do and make a meta-judgement based on the types of arguments made by each side.
Who is arguing that AI will replace programmers? People who are invested in AI, or people who want cheaper labor.
Who is arguing against that? Programmers who want to keep their job.
Not much to draw from that angle.
What KIND of arguments is each side making?
Programmers: specific points that touch reality directly.
AI Programmer supporters: Typically, arguments are abstract and never touch reality directly, and seem to be motivated by hype more than experience. In the past, there has been cases where the abstract dreamer hype crowd has been right, but typically there are many pre-emptive waves who are wrong(as would be expected, unless you assume that people are incapable of expecting a thing to come before it's time, then there will be waves of people who pick up on a thing before it gets here, and they will be pre-emptive).
For this reason, plus the very limited amount of AI-generated code applied to non-trivial projects that I've seen(which doesn't and shouldn't hold much weight, because I'm not super familiar with the latest tech), I'm feeling like AI replacing programmers is at least a decade off.
I also feel like people are thinking about the problem wrong in general. They are jumping from our current state to a state where we have capable AI programmers without imagining the incremental transformations in work-place structure over time. We've been going through a trend where coding language gets closer to human language since the days of punch cards, and programmers will exist as a job until that trend reaches the point where programmers are "squeezed out". By that I mean, a programmers job is to convert the intentions(not words, important distinction) of the product manager into code, from this perspective they can be considered middlemen. Programmers will exist until the day that AI is so good that a middleman is no longer needed, that a product manager can talk directly to an AI and get the desired results. Knowing how bad product managers are at explaining what they ACTUALLY need, on a concrete literal level, I think this problem is more difficult than people assume. Even if we had AI that produced perfect code that did exactly what was asked of it, I'm not sure if that'd be good enough, precisely because it does EXACTLY what is asked of it.
For a second I thought the title was implying that they were giving the "all clear" TO the asteroid, like, "all good, we won't stop you if you wanna destroy us all." And it didn't even stand out to me as an especially crazy headline considering all the other shit I've been seeing lately.
My wife has a "Dr Dennis Gross Red Light Mask" that has a setting for 650nm + 850nm red light. Supposed to help with aging or something but the specs match up perfectly.
Probably way too expensive for people to buy for this purpose(probably too expensive for skin care too, it's just a mask with red LED's, if I knew that's what she was buying I probably would've just made one. That's probably why she didn't tell me). Anyway, for anyone out there looking to buy a product, it's worth checking if your wife/gf already has something. Lots of products like this for anti aging as well as for hair growth
the problem is that if this becomes more common your argument won't be an option. It'd be akin to saying "just ignore the company's offers for health insurance" - well now our whole system is designed to account for and expect employer sponsored health insurance and you'll be at a massive disadvantage by not accepting it.
I think people who don't like it are just afraid of where this appears to be heading, and they are just resisting the idea of employers gaining anymore control of other aspects of peoples lives. Of course, the people who do this are technically choosing to give up this control to employers on their own volition, but it's possible to imagine a future where this becomes very normal and difficult to avoid
The current stage of development of consciousness that the world is going through(and seemingly reaching the end of) is one of competition and individualism. There are good and bad aspects of this, as with all other stages of development, but the level selfishness that comes along with it and motivates individuals to destroy things in order to outdo each other isn't a universal thing, in the grand scheme of the development of human consciousness it's just one of many phases.
That's the main reason why I think there's no legislating or protesting our way out of the big problems(though that doesn't mean those things are useless). The way only way out is through the development and maturation of humanity. Obviously you can't force that on people though, all you can do is focus on your own self-development and give others the respect and dignity required not to impede on their own self-development, regardless of how much you may disagree or dislike them
People aren't going to like this, if most people did then the modern age wouldn't be what it is. I think it's important for people to see things from outside the bias of their current age, the "spirit of the times", before they can do anything other than perpetuate the existing modern biases and blindspots. Which isn't an easy thing to do, even if everyone learned the historical context of the world and learned about the changes in societies and personalities over time, it's very difficult not to view all that context through the filter of modern perspectives and miss the essence of it completely
Just because they don't hypocritically claim they care about their employees and only laid them off because they HAD to, doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize them and (if possible) use our leverage as workers to influence them to make better decisions. Just because we know corporations only value profit, to the detriment of human quality of life in general, doesn't mean we should accept it
I think it's commonly known, maybe not proven, but also it's a case of can they? yes. Would they? yes. As long as you agree with those two premises it's pretty likely
I've had the same experience, and often(when I'm not too lazy from smoking), I'll write down the ideas to read when I'm sober.
Usually they are correct and kind of insightful(by this I simply mean, insightful relative to the level of my normal "sober thoughts") but not as ground breaking as I thought - in fact it's usually something very obviously true and "known" but not "realized", as in the unique aspect wasn't having the thought, but recognizing the significance of the thought.
The easiest parallel I can think of during sobriety, is when you take something you know like "the ocean is filling with plastics", you're always aware that it's true and really messed up, but sometimes you'll think of it and see the thought from a specific angle that really makes you internalize how serious it is and how crazy it is that this is something happening in the world. You didn't realize anything you didn't already know, but it's still a new and useful insight
> My wish is that this big tech cycle has been long enough for us to have collectively learned at least some lessons about what’s desirable and what’s not in such vital communication infrastructure.
This is how progress usually works. Advancements are made, there are pitfalls / consequences, we learn from those, then new advancements are made.
The modern age is progressing too quickly though, it's just "advancements are made, people just barely begin recognizing the downsides, new advancements are made way before we adapt to the previous advancements". The life of someone from 1700 vs someone from 1850 is more similar than the life of someone from 1990 to 2020
If the response counts as a comment, then that ratio is impossible to fulfill - although in that interpretation it'd be impossible to fulfill IRL as well, so I don't think we can use comments vs replies as a metric, unless you only count root-level comments as "talking" and sub-root comments as "listening", in which case I feel like the ratio does hold true
yeah I was thinking the same thing as I wrote it actually, but went with that example anyway as it's a typical example for a job that pays more because of a lower supply of people willing to do it. Could've used those ice-road truckers or deep sea fisherman or some other risky job as a more clear-cut example, but I think any example works to demonstrate the point
you're right, I kinda skimmed the article but I see what you mean now.
I am a bit sensitive when articles like this even refer to "the left" or "the right" because I'm so conditioned to think it's another misconstruction intended to create blame and hate instead of awareness and healing/resolution. I should've have commented if I didn't have time to read it all carefully though
Despite the fact that the distinction is very philosophical, I think the implications are very practical. Without it's own initiating energy everything an AI produces will be a response to an input, and it's response will be constrained by the bounds implied by that input. The specific type of dialectic between the programmer and the person giving requirements, which leads to creating the ACTUAL requirements, is impossible to happen with an AI, because a dialectic requires two opposed agents/forces while an AI is incapable of being an opposing force because it is only a derivative or product of whatever force is providing it's input; basically, it is constrained inside a box defined by the input it is given, and precisely what is needed for true synthesis(new ideas/thoughts, as opposed to an analytic breaking down of the already proposed ideas) is a whole separate box to interact with the one defined by the input.
My explanation is extremely abstract and will probably only make sense to someone who almost agrees with me already, but that's the best I could do. I'm sure there is a more down-to-earth way to explain this but I guess my understanding isn't good enough to find it yet. In my defense I do think this particular issue of agency in AI is one of the most subtle and philosophical problems in the world right now that actual has practical implications.