Planktonne

5 ms·

1.
by Planktonne 3d ago
I don't agree that people do see that, and if they do, it's hardly an overwhelming trend.
2.
by Planktonne 3d ago
> those who learn to use AI effectively are seeing massive benefits The massive benefits should be visible to outside observers as well, but where are they?
3.
by Planktonne 4d ago
AI can be very helpful in lots of ways, but I think it's fair to say that it is most powerful as an enabler for bad actors.
4.
by Planktonne 4d ago
> The statement is so sterile they don't even mention who solved it. Possibly because of the ongoing debate about who actually deserves credit.
5.
by Planktonne 4d ago
If the query is just 'python', then both you and your neighbour should get some links for the language and some for the animal. If it only gives you the one you already know about, it's a useless tool.
6.
by Planktonne 5d ago
There's nothing more thought-suppressing than dismissing all equation to fascism as thought suppression. If we actually agreed on the principle, you wouldn't be engaging in the behaviour.
7.
by Planktonne 5d ago
You're engaging in worse faith; dismissing all criticism because it draws a parallel you don't like isn't reasonable. Sometimes, it will be fascism. "It's never fascism" is not a good heuristic.
8.
by Planktonne 5d ago
That's a lot of leaping to conclusions based on a small criticism. I'm rather tired, personally, of the HN trope of people saying that AI is bad for/mis-used by everyone except a carefully-defined group that consists of exact
9.
by Planktonne 5d ago
> I do think that for the atypical user that is "information-hungry," > Prior to AI, I would have just... not spent the time looking them up. You're putting yourself in the group of people who are 'information-hung
10.
by Planktonne 5d ago
I don't think that's a reasonable read; you can't dismiss a specific criticism on the (unsupported) ground that the person making it would totally have dismissed anything at all.
11.
by Planktonne 5d ago
> feel no need to differentiate themselves from other anti-technology arguments Why should they? Other "anti-tech" arguments include - Concern about global warming/pollution - Resistance to nuclear/chemical warfare It
12.
by Planktonne 5d ago
I answered your initial question in good faith, but it's increasingly clear each time you shift the goalposts that you're more interested in JAQ than discussing. As before, despite your prevarication, I've provided examples o
13.
by Planktonne 6d ago
They're being sued for several issues that resulted in the deaths of users; that's not fraud, but it is against their users. The parallel still holds, and the information is still on the page I linked.
14.
by Planktonne 6d ago
The smartest minds in advertising convinced everyone they were in tech.
15.
by Planktonne 6d ago
Nonsense; the claim was that they wouldn't do anything that would mean they'd be > risking massive lawsuits and a total loss of trust Evidence of the massive lawsuits and lack of trust seems pretty relevant.
16.
by Planktonne 6d ago
You can read their Wikipedia page [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#Governance_and_legal_is...
17.
by Planktonne 6d ago
They've done similar things with similar risks repeatedly.
18.
by Planktonne 7d ago
The industrial revolution and the British empire are both extremely clear proof that Britain was in no way 'crippled'. Particularly not in the world of knowledge, given the countless inventions involved. If the creation of copyrig
19.
by Planktonne 7d ago
It's not clear that it actually does help solve crimes. It might even exacerbate them. There's been a lot of stalking enabled by Flock cameras.
20.
by Planktonne 7d ago
> in 1710, that crippled the world of knowledge in the United Kingdom How do you account for the industrial revolution under this framing, or the global dominance of the British Empire? Its really hard to argue that 1710 onwards marked
21.
by Planktonne 7d ago
I know this is a popular take on HN, but it's very much one that collapses the moment you think about it. Abolishing copyright would only enable the large corporations further.
22.
by Planktonne 7d ago
> A possible first step could be giving copyright owners a single obligation: you have to sell what you own This would be wildly unreasonable and totally unethical. Every picture taken by a photographer has to be available on the market
23.
by Planktonne 7d ago
Mandating that creators lose control and the ability to profit from their work almost immediately will absolutely not encourage the production of new works.
24.
by Planktonne 8d ago
There's no logic here already; the principle you should be applying is Hitchen's razor[1]. There is no reason to assume that super intelligent evil AI with magic powers will appear; while we are purely in the realm of (hackneyed)
25.
by Planktonne 8d ago
You don't need to shut down open-weight models to avoid SkyNet; it's not relevant at all.
26.
by Planktonne 8d ago
This is groundless speculation; if you're going to go that far off the map, then we don't need to worry because a good AI (blue eyes not red) will have learnt to love by then and will save us. There is currently no reason to belie
27.
by Planktonne 10d ago
Coming equipped to discuss a topic before chiming in is your responsibility.
28.
by Planktonne 10d ago
People in the past being wrong doesn't mean you have to repeat the same mistakes, and it definitely doesn't mean you should throw your hands up and declare that all similar things must be identical. Quibbling over commonly-underst
29.
by Planktonne 10d ago
The crucial distinction here is that "seem" does not at all mean the same thing as "is". Thunder seems like the anger of the gods but it isn't . We've had chess playing programs for a long time now and despite
30.
by Planktonne 10d ago
That's an absurdist argument that would make 'smarter' meaningless. A giraffe isn't smarter than me at being tall.

More ›