I think this one is more relevant for you:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Good interaction you two. I am in my late 30s and I also believe I will see some major fallout from AI use in my lifetime.personally. Good discussion and stay in good health both of you!

Psst, careful, it might remember

This automatic assumption of "better" is both hilariously naieve and terribly scary to me.

Paying a monthly fee for a service run by a giant corporation isn't democracy, bud

Open Source plays nice with capitalism every day.

This isn't a pro-capitalist stance mind you, fuck capitalism. It's more about how open source is amazing.

Also, everything isn't an overthrow. Everyone wants an overnight revolution but most things happen over time.

A better option existing for a long time will slowly make the capitalistic impulses less attractive.

The person I replied to asked what democratisation means in this context and I answered.

Even with your decent points in mind - no, it's still not creativity. The complexity and self-generstive qualities must be there. I know your point is that it will "get there" but to your point, it is not there yet. So no, it doesn't qualify as creativity because it's only a system that simulates creativity.

I realize you're still claiming that human creativity is still just a rehashed bundle of inputs but we don't have the complexity I'm AI to actually perform this action, therefore it is not there yet.

Link me to the wikipedia page about drawing a picture and then I'll know you're an expert on that, too.

But "to me" isn't the test. Hundreds of other people made the spot that you didn't.

No, because it's a trash article that everyone spotted right away

So you're advocating killing artists' revenue and sending them to work at Macdonalds, in fact giving a death blow to actual human culture.

Major corporations don't give power away for the sake of it. Especially after investing millions/billions developing the technology and applications of it. That's naive.

But it's true, this is most likely bringing an apocalyse of sorts.

This isn't a conversation about better or worse, how "good" they are is centrally the problem. This is an ethics conversation.

It's written by ChatGPT, of course it's nonsense.

Please point to where the reality made itself less insecure.

When it’s literally every job, who knows? Cultural realignment.

For real world examples of what happens to workers when large industries are automated to the point where whole communities are no longer needed, look at former steelworking communities in the Rust Belt in the US. Brain drain, people who can move away do, people who can’t end up dependent on government assistance, skyrocketing drug abuse and general despair.

Disgusting article honestly, and just poorly written.

“Let’s embrace AI taking the role of artists, it can be just as if not more creative than humans (as long as a human gives it a creative enough prompt)”

Just the whole idea of using AI to take not just the menial jobs as it was meant to, but also the jobs that many are genuinely passionate about is just wretched. This is most lame, yet just as disturbing robotic apocalypse imaginable

We just have to move to socialism (democratic). That's it. Humanity is OK, capitalism isn't.

Not hard to predict what AI will be used for when we rabble become violent to the elites. Boston Dynamics has been perfecting mobility platforms for AI shaped like Dobermans for quite some time.

What is going to happen when we've automated everyone's jobs to AI and then there is no one working with any money left to buy the products that have had their entire production process/supply line automated?

I remain to be convinced that when it comes to design safety audits - my job - "good enough to pass" is going to swing.

Please stop calling it "AI". It is artificial, no doubt, but there is no intelligence. It can't even do basic logic inference.

Perhaps worth remembering that they said the same and worse when personal computers became available. Time will tell. Almost certainly not mine, as it happens, as my current life expectancy is below 10 years.

no seriously, communists have been warning against this exact situation for years now.

I don't disagree with your point, however my definition of "realness" hinges on the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic properties. And current scientific knowledge does seem to imply there is stuff with intrinsic properties, where interactions between them generates everything we feel, see, and experience in this universe.

I personally also don't put any "virtue" in something being real or not. I couldn't give a rat's ass if the universe was a simulation or a dream for example. Or what have you. So that's why I'm confused as to why people are such ardent defenders in this sub? The fact that all our experiences just arise from almost infinitely complex interactions between infinitesimally small objects is quite beautiful, in my opinion.

Edit: Also my definition isn't based on something as silly as "smallest". It's based on something that is INTRINSIC, meaning that it's something that can't be subdivider into smaller parts and that itself isn't an emergent property of other interactions. Some intrinsic items can be bigger than others. Electrons for example seem to be intrinsic, even though they're interacting with other extrinsic properties all the time. Size or whatever is irrelevant. If there was a huge intrinsic particle the size of a human that we could see, it would still be real vs unreal things.