Lots of people on Lemmy really dislike AI’s current implementations and use cases.
I’m trying to understand what people would want to be happening right now.
Destroy gen AI? Implement laws? Hoping all companies use it for altruistic purposes to help all of mankind?
Thanks for the discourse. Please keep it civil, but happy to be your punching bag.
Ah, I haven’t looked at others’ responses. I can see how responding to many different people gets messy.
But to answer your question, because I took the time to formulate my thoughts for you, and I responded directly to things you said in your comments. I also asked you directly “How so? What’s your alternative assertion.” Which was a good faith attempt to better understand what you meant.
Well, I do consider this post, as a rephrasing of
not made in good faith. You don’t engage with the point I’m making at all. Instead, you pivot from understanding the logic to making sure the sources are trustworthy. Which is a fair standard for critical thought or whatever, but definitely not what the original contention of the first commenter was. Which was heavily upvoted (=a popular opinition?), and which originally I replied to.
Also, hearing “How so? What’s your alternative assertion” after ten comments worth of people going out their way to misunderstand my point, presumably because they dislike AI, is not motivating.
OP: I want people to think for ourselves.
My understanding of your point: People have never done that because no thought is truly independent. Modern complexity relies on thought that builds upon others.
My point: Sure, but that’s also a narrow and ungenerous interpretation of the term “independent thought” as per OP’s usage. It’s closer to critical thought than silo’d thought developed from the ground up.
Modern thought not only relies on thought built upon other people, it relies on trusting textbooks, data aggregators like weather apps, google search results, bus route apps, wikipedia, forum posts, etc. etc.
I don’t think it’s ungenerous at all to question whether are LLMs really any different in this regard. You take in information from an imperfect automated source, just as we’ve done for a really long time, depending on the definition.
The no thought is truly independent is also a bit of a strawman. The point was, the more complex technology you have, the more the same ideas spread and thought is harmonized (which is good in some ways, standardization makes things easier).