Recent content by The Firebird

I think this is reasonable so long as the assumptions hold.

Not what my post said

Do you have a particular metric in mind? Not sure this is something we can quantify. Generally I think it is ok for books to print things that are false, for internet sites to post things that are false, for people to tell each other things that are false. I don't see a categorical difference...

The existence of hallucinations is not surprising at this point ... nor is the fact that people are uncritically trusting it. We saw the same with adoption of the internet. I don't see why it rises to a level where something must be done about the technology, in this case.

I suppose everyone does. For me gen AI seems about the same level as Internet access. It seems clearly on the ok side of that line. Yes. There is stuff to be said about free speech but I think most people know what I'll say, so I'll just confirm I'll bite that bullet. (No, I am not asserting...

I disagree but I think there is some plausibility to this claim and I don't want to stray into politics, so +1.

I don't think this is a great analogy. We aren't relying on the AI the same way we rely on the medical device--we trust the practitioner to use it appropriately. Instead--suppose a doctor buys a vital tracking device from a third party and asks you to wear it. It will get your heart rate, bp...

It really all hinges on the first point, it seems to me. If it is actively harmful then I agree it shouldn't be used. But I think it's quite beneficial, so the environmental concerns don't set it apart from any other useful technology.

I'm not anti mitigation by any means. But if you can't even get folks to stop eating cheeseburgers...at a certain point it becomes clear the chicken has left the coop, with respect to the environmental criticisms.

Frankly, I think the bets are moving on from mitigation at this point. At least in academia, funding decisions, faculty hires, the rhetoric of climate scientists, are all gradually moving towards geoengineering solutions. Based on the amount of forcing and sensitivity of the climate system...

Careful. I'm not saying gen AI doesn't have to stand on its own. I'm not saying "those of us who eat meat can't criticize AI". I'm saying that our society makes cost-benefit analyses about energy usage all the time, and that by those standards, gen AI does stand on its own. Yeah, the way...

Eh. I think we can do exactly that. A good driver would drive well...a good author will not use their books to spread lies...a good pilot will land the plane successfully. If every lawyer is a bad actor, it doesn't matter what the legal system is.

We're still living in the world created by fallout from the printing press. So I'm not sure being 'no different than any other technological development' means 'nothing to worry about'!

I think the comparison to drugs is so far off the mark that it probably isn't worth continuing on this topic. I'll just say I find it useful and leave it at that.

If you make the time meaningful you'll see the same. Maybe the PCs door procedure takes a turn and they get a random monster roll. So they can't use it while fleeing, and don't bother when there isn't a big risk.