FOUND IT
-
FOUND IT
@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?
-
FOUND IT
@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.
-
FOUND IT
@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.
-
FOUND IT
@lokeloski my biggest takeaway from this is that YOU CAN BE A COMICS PROFESSOR?!?!!?!?
-
@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.
-
@lokeloski the lack of artist solidarity stings here...those people think everyone else but them can be replaced by an LLM...foolish creatures
@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.
-
FOUND IT
@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.
-
FOUND IT
@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.
-
@lokeloski the subtext here is also that at least some artists do not consider other artistic fields "real" art
@ratsnakegames this right here
️
@lokeloski -
@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.
@davidgerard ironically I really thought Crichton was smart until he wrote a book around my own field of expertise.
@geeeero @lokeloski -
FOUND IT
@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.
-
FOUND IT
@lokeloski People perennially underestimate the difficulty of any type of work other than the type they do themselves.
-
@gkrnours
Some mathematicians are also on this "let's automatize our own job" path…
@lokeloskiTerry Tao?
-
@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.
@davidgerard @geeeero @lokeloski could you elaborate on it, or provide some sources? Cause at first glance it honestly feels pretty accurate? Like I've even felt myself slip into this, and I only learned there's a name for it just now
-
@davidgerard @geeeero @lokeloski could you elaborate on it, or provide some sources? Cause at first glance it honestly feels pretty accurate? Like I've even felt myself slip into this, and I only learned there's a name for it just now
@hazelnot @geeeero @lokeloski well, the linked Wikipedia article for one. If you're demanding I go prove a negative for you, i mean, you could go look yourself.
-
@hazelnot @geeeero @lokeloski well, the linked Wikipedia article for one. If you're demanding I go prove a negative for you, i mean, you could go look yourself.
@davidgerard @geeeero @lokeloski I'm not *demanding* anything, I was just asking
I read the Wikipedia article and it didn't seem like trash to me, it says it hasn't been formally recognised but that it's "gained traction in critical thinking and media literacy discussions"
-
@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.
@deborahh @mynameistillian @lokeloski
The machine can not replace the human.
The machine will be used to replace the human. -
@davidgerard @geeeero @lokeloski I'm not *demanding* anything, I was just asking
I read the Wikipedia article and it didn't seem like trash to me, it says it hasn't been formally recognised but that it's "gained traction in critical thinking and media literacy discussions"
@hazelnot @geeeero @lokeloski and it cites a total of one thing
hence the notability tag
i put a note on the talk page that this is based on almost nothing except a vastly overlength quote and the few sentences in the crichton article do exactly the same job
-
FOUND IT
@lokeloski Found the link https://catmask.tumblr.com/post/805377916247621632
-
FOUND IT
@lokeloski because "Gen" really means not only "generative", but also "generic". So, it can only truly replace generalists, but not specialists.
