The advent of Turing-test-passing AI was such an enormous mistake. There’s no shortage of people who want to do creative, intellectual work. People even do it in their spare time and give the product away. They’re trying to automate the wrong kinds of jobs.
Turns out the wrong kinds of jobs are easier to automate. But once we get those done away with, it’s a lot of more labour in physical jobs and we can drive those costs down. Great, eh?
Tbf we’ll need to automate everything we can because we aren’t producing enough kids to keep this upside down pyramid going for much longer unfortunately. By we, I mean most of the developed world, and the developing world will get there in a few decades too.
Wait until the printing press arrives, all the scribe monks will become jobless and no one will have experience anymore.
Wait until the cotton gin arrives, all the hand weavers will become jobless and no one will have experience anymore.
Wait until the computer arrives, people will become obsolete and no one will have experience anymore.
Wait until the steam engine, automobiles, planes, calculators, telephones, bla bla
“Slippery slope” arguments like these assume that once a technology introduces a specific risk, society lacks the agency to create counter-measures, new norms, or alternative uses for that technology.
History shows that when a “slope” appears, regulation steps in, technology evolves to solve the problem, or the culture shifts to reinterpret the tool.
In almost every case, the feared “bottom” of the slope was never reached because humans constantly built ramps or bridges along the way.
None of those tools could do the decision making part.
I see this comparison so often and it’s incredibly disingenuous. An LLM can iterate over a problem and resolve it over time. It can debug, fact check, create and test hypotheses.
That is distinctly different from arithmetic but faster or writing but faster.
Prior to this technology there was some “higher” or more complex skill that could be learned that encorporated the new tool. The human brain stays relevant only in a new and more expansive space.
This tool does not do that. There is nothing more advanced the human brain can do beyond problem solving.
There is an entire field of research dedicated to this; RBV. Things like a lathe or a calculator are “complementary tools” under RBV, humans can utilize them without loss of the skill that enables them. LLM’s are “substitutive” tools under RBV, they replace human skills without enhancement.
The advent of Turing-test-passing AI was such an enormous mistake. There’s no shortage of people who want to do creative, intellectual work. People even do it in their spare time and give the product away. They’re trying to automate the wrong kinds of jobs.
Turns out the wrong kinds of jobs are easier to automate. But once we get those done away with, it’s a lot of more labour in physical jobs and we can drive those costs down. Great, eh?
Tbf we’ll need to automate everything we can because we aren’t producing enough kids to keep this upside down pyramid going for much longer unfortunately. By we, I mean most of the developed world, and the developing world will get there in a few decades too.
Just to add an analysis of UN numbers on this.
Wait until the printing press arrives, all the scribe monks will become jobless and no one will have experience anymore.
Wait until the cotton gin arrives, all the hand weavers will become jobless and no one will have experience anymore.
Wait until the computer arrives, people will become obsolete and no one will have experience anymore.
Wait until the steam engine, automobiles, planes, calculators, telephones, bla bla
“Slippery slope” arguments like these assume that once a technology introduces a specific risk, society lacks the agency to create counter-measures, new norms, or alternative uses for that technology.
History shows that when a “slope” appears, regulation steps in, technology evolves to solve the problem, or the culture shifts to reinterpret the tool.
In almost every case, the feared “bottom” of the slope was never reached because humans constantly built ramps or bridges along the way.
None of those tools could do the decision making part.
I see this comparison so often and it’s incredibly disingenuous. An LLM can iterate over a problem and resolve it over time. It can debug, fact check, create and test hypotheses.
That is distinctly different from arithmetic but faster or writing but faster.
But not “problem-solving but faster”.
Correct, yes.
Prior to this technology there was some “higher” or more complex skill that could be learned that encorporated the new tool. The human brain stays relevant only in a new and more expansive space.
This tool does not do that. There is nothing more advanced the human brain can do beyond problem solving.
There is an entire field of research dedicated to this; RBV. Things like a lathe or a calculator are “complementary tools” under RBV, humans can utilize them without loss of the skill that enables them. LLM’s are “substitutive” tools under RBV, they replace human skills without enhancement.
Here, there’s a whole paper about it.
https://sms.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smj.3387
I’m a bit afraid to rely on common sense or regulations being reasonable, but yes, we never reached the bottom yet