FOUND IT
-
@mynameistillian @lokeloski ah, I see it now: *this* is at the root of why mandated AI use is so corrosive. Someone up the heirarchy, not understanding the complexity of the work of their subordinates, thinks they are replaceable by the machine. Hmm. I need to think on this.
@deborahh @mynameistillian @lokeloski
The machine can not replace the human.
The machine will be used to replace the human. -
@davidgerard @geeeero @lokeloski I'm not *demanding* anything, I was just asking
I read the Wikipedia article and it didn't seem like trash to me, it says it hasn't been formally recognised but that it's "gained traction in critical thinking and media literacy discussions"
@hazelnot @geeeero @lokeloski and it cites a total of one thing
hence the notability tag
i put a note on the talk page that this is based on almost nothing except a vastly overlength quote and the few sentences in the crichton article do exactly the same job
-
FOUND IT
@lokeloski Found the link https://catmask.tumblr.com/post/805377916247621632
-
FOUND IT
@lokeloski
We all take pride in our work but the reality is that most of it is meaningless. Sure we can do a better job in context than AI, but jobs are not about efficiency, but about power. And the only one more powerless than an employed person is a person looking for work. Which is why the powerful love AI. It seems to have an added benefit in being capable of sowing division. -
FOUND IT
@lokeloski because "Gen" really means not only "generative", but also "generic". So, it can only truly replace generalists, but not specialists. -
FOUND IT
@lokeloski Clearly, the only thing AI can actually replace is…. Engineers doing AI work.
Once no humans are working on AI any more, nobody will care what it does.
-
FOUND IT
Ok, this has been making the rounds around here, so I'm muting it now because it keeps blowing my notifications up.
-
FOUND IT
-
@deborahh @mynameistillian @lokeloski
The machine can not replace the human.
The machine will be used to replace the human.@wifwolf @mynameistillian @lokeloski inadequately
-
FOUND IT
@lokeloski I just want AI to do the dishes, clean the house and do the washing...why is it so difficult?
-
FOUND IT
@lokeloski whenever I do end up trying to use gen AI for anything, it's precisely because I know I'm not good at whatever I ask it to do, knowing it'll spit out something mediocre to either use as a placeholder so I can at least move on with the stuff I am good at or as something that's "good enough" if it's of lower importance but still needs to be present. If it was as quick and... dirt cheap to commission, that might be good for me but let's be real, commissioning stuff from people who actually know what they're doing shouldn't be paid bargain-bin style.
Some of my D&D characters have faces now because this one time I messed around with Stable Diffusion a little. It's not something I'd have been able to justify spending money on to get commissioned, and the results from the gen AI were mediocre at best but they serve their purpose of visualising my characters at least more than just words on paper. I don't have an amazingly vivid imagination and I definitely don't have that of anyone else so sometimes it's just convenient to have a visual representation that can be shared with others in this case.
And tbf a lot of the time when I want AI to fill in the gaps, it's not actually good enough to do so. The sad reality is that even with the more ethical approach of using AI as a tool to help with productivity rather than replacing people, it's usually not nearly good enough to actually help. Oftentimes, just struggling to do it yourself anyway and producing something crappy is still better than an AI generated hallucination that looks alright at first but progressively gets worse with every passing second of looking at it. I'll sometimes use it for stuff that it's sufficiently okay at and when it makes sense, and will certainly never claim credit for what pops out of it. But besides that it's just often not even useful in the first place. -
@wifwolf @mynameistillian @lokeloski inadequately
@deborahh @mynameistillian @lokeloski
Yup.
But on the bright side management won't care because they're adding value for the shareholders
-
@deborahh @mynameistillian @lokeloski
Yup.
But on the bright side management won't care because they're adding value for the shareholders
@wifwolf @mynameistillian @lokeloski "value"
-
@davidgerard ironically I really thought Crichton was smart until he wrote a book around my own field of expertise.
@geeeero @lokeloski@Tattie @davidgerard @geeeero @lokeloski
Well, he is smart. In his field. Like you may be in your fields. It's not possible for a human brain to be smart in evrything.
-
FOUND IT
Well, I thought that's the point of a tool, you use it because you dont have the skills to do it without?
-
@davidgerard ironically I really thought Crichton was smart until he wrote a book around my own field of expertise.
@geeeero @lokeloski@Tattie @davidgerard @geeeero @lokeloski He writes well in his area of expertise (i.e. the medical and life science field,) and Jurassic Park will forever be a favourite of mine but I cannot understate how bad Timeline (the time travel book set in medieval France) is. I feel like I can judge both because I'm a biologist and a reenactor LOL
-
@mynameistillian @lokeloski ah, I see it now: *this* is at the root of why mandated AI use is so corrosive. Someone up the heirarchy, not understanding the complexity of the work of their subordinates, thinks they are replaceable by the machine. Hmm. I need to think on this.
"Someone up the hierarchy, not understanding the complexity of the work of their subordinates..." — i.e.; standard MBA management. But AI gives them the ultimate excuse: "It's not me, it's the computer."
-
FOUND IT
You ever notice that reporters and journalists are always experts on everything but fields you actually know something about?
-
@lokeloski I’ve seen this attitude even in some highly skilled people.
The idea that what they’re doing is obviously complex and requires deep knowledge and skills, but work that others are doing is obviously trivial. Very surprising.
It’s not uncommon for undergraduates to assume some field is easy, because the introductory course they had on it was, but for accomplished professors to have similar ideas about fields outside of their expertise? Why? Is there a psychologist in the house?
@xerge @lokeloski it was at least a decade after earning my STEM degrees that I understood how much social sciences really actually are... science
-
You ever notice that reporters and journalists are always experts on everything but fields you actually know something about?
@resuna @lokeloski good old Knoll's Law/Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, so striking it was named twice.
