AI is not a just a database capable of better searchint thrn users typically are. Its not your typical search engine either. The fact it used the web as the source of info is not at all limiting it. It is able to make use of that and make new ideas, solved problems that are not on the web.

There are also different knowledge types, not everything is declerative knowledge as Jeopardy. Its able to do much more then that.

I’m not sure if Detroit is worse than Ohio in 2022.

[removed]

ChatGPT has already been neutered, so as long as an AI isn't 100% free without built in constraints that what he discribes wont happen.

[deleted]

yet the technologies in question are developed by scientists and researchers, not your casual far from science devs. some people go to get a degree, some for challenges and peers. you might not even fall under the former camp. this education at least passes the core knowledge which is the most important before branching out.

I'd encourage you to watch the discussion. It's very clear that they understand this tech and are thinking of this more deeply. They also do not present themselves as ivory tower experts. They admit that they need to re-think education in the face of these technologies. It's unfair to dismiss them on prejudices.

[deleted]

> This is the proper use of AI

I'm not sure I'd agree, but I also don't disagree. It is still in the early stages of what is possible and getting it in the hands of consumers. For me, I find it helpful to connect abstract thoughts like, a Shakespearean style rap song about the struggles of putting on a shoe. Or in my day to day, connection two programming related tools together. It's like amazing for being curious as if you were a 5 year old asking "why?". The danger comes from just accepting without challenging which I may have stated earlier.

> If I can give AI a series of verbal commands on how to do a tedious task like editing thousands of pages of text and use the proper images supplied that correspond to the text.

We are already see similar use cases at least on a simpler level. Cover letters can be generated from job descriptions and resume, click bait short article/blog shops are nearly obsolete. > At some point in the future the bots are going to be spamming the hell out of social media platforms if they aren't already. It'll be one bot fighting another bot.

Yea, we need critical thinking and personally my hope is that we move away from the need of social media, or at least moves to 4th place in our attention, students using it for their homework. To me, holding back progress to keep an old system doesn't help. AI has the potential to change our current systems, but as it is a tool it can go off the other end as we've seen in movie with AI taking over, but I think is will be more corporate greed/ people in power may use it for control. Hence, why being skeptical and critical thinking is now more important then ever.

"I hope that AI can stream line more menial tasks... "

Yes, more of this please. If I can give AI a series of verbal commands on how to do a tedious task like editing thousands of pages of text and use the proper images supplied that correspond to the text. This is the proper use of AI. There are millions of redundant tasks that can't be simply automated because they need to be context sensitive. I'm not expecting it to do it perfectly, but a base line starting point so I don't have to start from scratch is what is desperately needed. Or a means of interpreting abstract data like images.

I don't want or need a trivia bot. And everyone is coming out with a trivia bot that is more or less the same as the other trivia bots and then wanting to start a company with a 20 billion dollar valuation. I'm sick of that crap.

I don't want a chatbot. I feel like these are really useful propaganda tools. We're at a point where, how can you know that I'm not a bot?!

At some point in the future the bots are going to be spamming the hell out of social media platforms if they aren't already. It'll be one bot fighting another bot.

I hope that AI can stream line more menial tasks, but . Small example, traveling in 2000 vs 2023, using the map vs a smart phone. Weirdly enough, I hope it's use may promote more critical thinking. At least in it's current form. It isn't perfect, so we become more editors then "writers". But need to challenge it in order for it to adjust to ours specific needs. Once adjust that tool become second nature. Almost like the time takes to learn a skill. In principle, it sound greate to off load that "stress" of learning, but I do have my concerns. For one thing, current social media's entire business model is centered around abuse's the dopamine pathways that were probably designed for something less intense and more infrequent. So, if we alleviate some stresses of mastery, how will the human body adapt? Maybe humans need some amount of stress to thrive? There is still so much to understand, esp for me to understand.

If you wanna get answers to Jeapardy just use Google. AI like chat GTP is not google, the diffrence is that they have the possibility to answer more complex questions than jeopardy questions. I've used it to answer or to get more insight on questions even for advanced college courses. (With successfull and unsuccessful results of course)

I googled when AI could solve Jeopardy questions better than a human and it was 10 years ago

If the AI is based on what it can find on the web then it is worthless for everything that doesn't entail answering Jeopardy questions. And if you're teaching a survey course, you already know that you're job was in danger of being replaced by videos.
Someone is hoping to get rich selling another idiot bot.

No, they aren't. Aside from the fact that very few people could live like I do there's purely economic reasons why it's economic suicide. Economics is driven by the balance between supply and demand. If we have the productive capacity to increase supply but workers aren't paid enough to purchase that supply then production must get cut to match the repressed demand. This not only cost jobs it drives the entire economy down to the level that the pay (demand) can't support. It creates a demand constrained economy.

And economy can also be supply constrained when worker pay exceeds some threshold relative to capital returns. This actually happened back in the 1970s, as is why the Reagan revolution happened when it did. But where are we in that ratio at present? This graph is a few years behind but it tells the story. We live in a demand constrained economy. Thus providing fewer opportunities for businesses to invest in more production in spite of capital being flush with cash beyond all historical precedence. Which cuts economic growth. Especially compared to 1950s and 60s.

In effect not only is our economy smaller than it could be with the same productive capacity it growth is also slower. And all that capital is being spent on rent seeking rather than actually increasing productivity. Because pay is too low to support the demand need to grow that productivity.

Up until the 1980s economist were mostly settled on the tenet that the economy was demand driven. The data from the previous several decades had convinced them of this. So they overheated demand, driving inflation and even stagflation, to the point that it created a supply constrained economy. After Reagan economist became mostly convinced the economy was supply side driven. Especially given the computer revolution that was pumping massive investments and productivity growth. But they also froze out wages. Which meant workers couldn't actually afford to buy up all this excess productivity once the investments were done and companies wanted all the ROI. Instead seeking more wage suppression to maximize profits even more. Thus hurting demand even more.

So no, they are not full of shit. Not even when you ignore that my strategy would not be acceptable to any but a very tiny minority. Things will change sooner or later. I'm just afraid that when it does there will be no sense of balance (again) when it happens.

You live off of far less than half the poverty line? I guess all those folks calling to raise minimum wage are full of shit then if you can live on 7k a year.

I live in a much cheaper CoL area but I get by on less than 7k a year.

Not sure how they are pulling these numbers but if you are making 50k in NYC how are you even living indoors?

Source ZipRecruiter:

New York City: $51,586

Los Angeles: $67,199

Seattle: $74,895

And that's the high end of the average range.

If this dude lives in a major US city he could easily think that. You need to make a lot more money to live in like New York City or Las Angeles. So if this dude is say living in Seattle and thinks this I would give him a pass because around him he probably isn't wrong. Maybe even guessing low.

Yeah…this is half r/funny and half r/aww

Ok, some dude on YouTube said something stupid. Wow how fascinating! Yeah let's make a video about that and post it to r/videos because so many will enjoy that...

little pixar kid come to life

Man I saw this thing on TV earlier today then read about it four other times on different social media, now here, talk about trending!

She is adorable

This is a clip from the end of an hour long discussion. Would recommend watching the whole thing if you're interested. It was great to see these higher-education teachers discuss AI so candidly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz7aW6vStBw