FOUND IT
-
@lokeloski
alt-text screenshot of post by magicmooshka from Jan 7:
recently my friend's comics professor told her that it's acceptable to use gen AI for script-writing but not for art, since a machine can't generate meaningful artistic work. meanwhile, my sisters screenwriting professor said that they can use gen AI for concept art and visualization, but that it won't be able to generate script that's any good. and at my job, 1/2it seems like each department says that AI can be useful in every field except the one that they know best.
it's only ever the jobs we're unfamiliar with that we assume can be replaced with automation.
The more attuned we are with certain processes, crafts and occupations, the more we realize that gen AI will never be able to provide a suitable replacement. The case for its existence relies on our ignorance of the work and skill required to be everything we don't. 2/2 -
it seems like each department says that AI can be useful in every field except the one that they know best.
it's only ever the jobs we're unfamiliar with that we assume can be replaced with automation.
The more attuned we are with certain processes, crafts and occupations, the more we realize that gen AI will never be able to provide a suitable replacement. The case for its existence relies on our ignorance of the work and skill required to be everything we don't. 2/2strange conclusions by those professors,
in my mind it works differently,
when I say #salami output in a field where I'm expert and judge it to be inferior and conclude so-marketed gen AI will not be a competition, I would conclude this is valid for a l l other fields as well, and I as a dilettante in all other fields can be tricked to accept generated output as valid. -
strange conclusions by those professors,
in my mind it works differently,
when I say #salami output in a field where I'm expert and judge it to be inferior and conclude so-marketed gen AI will not be a competition, I would conclude this is valid for a l l other fields as well, and I as a dilettante in all other fields can be tricked to accept generated output as valid.the reason why mentioned professors and departments are willing to accept #salami output in other fields than theirs, may be caused by several year long propaganda on almost any channel, that claim we are living in a AI era, and that this is t h e new technology to be used, we see huge investments and think no one would just burn money on such a flawed dysfunctional slop generating "invention" so it must work
-
the reason why mentioned professors and departments are willing to accept #salami output in other fields than theirs, may be caused by several year long propaganda on almost any channel, that claim we are living in a AI era, and that this is t h e new technology to be used, we see huge investments and think no one would just burn money on such a flawed dysfunctional slop generating "invention" so it must work
-
@AdrianRiskin @lokeloski or more generally the egocentric bias. Veritasium has a nice video on this: https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I?si=ZV6CuklywzLekwHd
-
@AdrianRiskin @lokeloski It's one of the reasons that, when pointing out that I do not like Generative LLMs for the work they output, I do emphasize that it's not just *my* programming expertise that I feel this for.
Like, I feel the same way for books; if you wrote it with an LLM, and we can see because a prompt made it into the printed version, that tells me that you did not read what you claimed to have "Wrote" with an LLM - why should I read it then, when I know it can do the same thing it can do for math, or coding, or images?
-
FOUND IT
@lokeloski Very well put. To me, this is similar to the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, where for subjects we have deep knowlege about, we see all the flaws in media reports, but tend to assume that for all other subjects, the media reports are basically fine. @davidgerard
-
@lokeloski dev seems to be the only one thinking they can replace their own job with AI and everything will be fine
@gkrnours
Some mathematicians are also on this "let's automatize our own job" path…
@lokeloski -
FOUND IT
@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.
-
FOUND IT
@lokeloski@mastodon.social I just shared this at work.
With some of the people pushing for AI integration everywhere. -
FOUND IT
@lokeloski or programmers asking LLMs to generate code for them, because they cannot code -
FOUND IT
@lokeloski I call that Mount Stupid
-
@lokeloski Very well put. To me, this is similar to the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, where for subjects we have deep knowlege about, we see all the flaws in media reports, but tend to assume that for all other subjects, the media reports are basically fine. @davidgerard
@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.
-
FOUND IT
@lokeloski Fortunately for AI pushers, most people are ignorant about most things. Optimistically, the Inverse 80/20 rule applies.
-
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.
