FOUND IT

[mathieugenois@fediscience.org]

@gkrnours
Some mathematicians are also on this "let's automatize our own job" path…
@lokeloski

[forthy42@mastodon.net2o.de]

@lokeloski Gen AI can replace incompetent people. Well, it will be incompetent, too, but often somewhat better.

Same with self-driving cars. Self-driving cars replacing incompetent drivers and driving somewhat better than them is good enough to improve overall traffic safety.

We like to compare AI with the best people out there — we made the same mistake with chess players and go players and only accepted AI superiority when AI was able to beat the world champion; but it was playing better than average a decade before.

Current Gen AI is certainly worse than the best. But we don't have that many best people out there. We have a lot of stupid, uneducated people. And we have them in positions of power where they never should have been promoted to, and they do spectacularly wrong things there.

We are constantly overestimating human intelligence, too. Not just Gen AI intelligence.

[bovaz@misskey.social]

@lokeloski@mastodon.social I just shared this at work.
With some of the people pushing for AI integration everywhere.

[bartholin@fops.cloud]

@lokeloski or programmers asking LLMs to generate code for them, because they cannot code

[arnotron@noc.social]

@lokeloski I call that Mount Stupid

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@geeeero @lokeloski important to note the Gell-Mann effect is made up trash. It's literally something Crichton said once. So imagine how cognitive psychologists feel about it.

[woo@fosstodon.org]

@lokeloski Fortunately for AI pushers, most people are ignorant about most things. Optimistically, the Inverse 80/20 rule applies.

[xerge@mastodon.nl]

@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?

[jigmedatse@social.openpsychology.net]

@lokeloski@mastodon.social Why do I always find it at best questionable for any field I look at? Like, "yeah that kind of feels like that's maybe decent, but I'd have to check out to see if it's actually stupid..." Ah well, because it's always stupid when I have the slightest bit of a clue.

[wolf@helvede.net]

@lokeloski The strange thing about AI is that it generates great answers to everything I don't know much about, yet in my field of expertise it seems to be incredibly dumb.

[drhyde@fosstodon.org]

@lokeloski my biggest takeaway from this is that YOU CAN BE A COMICS PROFESSOR?!?!!?!?

[deborahh@cosocial.ca]

@PhilWill @ratsnakegames @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, declares they are replaceable by the machine.

Hmm. I need to think on this.

[deborahh@cosocial.ca]

@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.

[toerror@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@lokeloski In both cases it sounds like the advice is that you can't use it for things that you are going to be marked on - the justification given is of course, wrong.

[juni@chaos.social]

@lokeloski "It's only ever the jobs we're unfamiliar with that we assume can be replaced with automation."

Yup. And I only ever hear *bosses* say that *everybody* can be replaced by automation.

You may now draw your own conclusions.

[tattie@eldritch.cafe]

@ratsnakegames this right here ️
@lokeloski

[tattie@eldritch.cafe]

@davidgerard ironically I really thought Crichton was smart until he wrote a book around my own field of expertise.
@geeeero @lokeloski

[steveclough@metalhead.club]

@lokeloski There is a sense where, in an academic environment, using AI for those parts that are not central to ones study might be justified.

So, if you are doing comics, learning how to draw stories, maybe using something else for the storywriting is viable.

Obviously, not in the real world. In the real world, generative AI is of no use whatsoever.

[mpjgregoire@cosocial.ca]

@lokeloski People perennially underestimate the difficulty of any type of work other than the type they do themselves.

[craigduncan@mastodon.au]

@mathieugenois

Terry Tao?