Search results

Sure. Given how lead chefs are presented as "9-star chefs" because they own 3 restaurants with 3-stars, none of which they are actually cooking in, I'd say that's clearly the head chef that is credited. When it comes to art, we credit Sol LeWitt for its wall drawings, yet they are executed by...

I actually agree with your point. If AI is unusable and wasteful, then it's stupid to use it. If AI is as unreliable as supposed -- I wouldn't call it demonstrated by a single example that isn't proven to involve AI at all, that's not a very good threshold, if you go no further than the "Dall-E...

That's obvious that it won't work, but that's what we're doing anyway. That's probably what we should be doing, collectively. That isn't what we are doing, actually. Because eschewing convenient technologies or activities is a pain, and we collectively and individually aren't keen on...

Sure, but as we're all in the same closed system, we need to cooperate to the same goal. Saying "sucks to be you, you should have undergone an industrial revolution earlier, now suck it up" to countries we want to cooperate toward the goal isn't probably the best way to move them to our point of...

I just succeeded in putting sad emoji to your post. But for some reason, the pop-up to select which emoji to use disappears very quickly in my browser, so I had to click very quickly. Hope this helps.

I think the risk will increase as the tools are becoming more effective. As long as they are wrong 80% of the time, and it's easy to spot the errors, doctors will get trained as they are now and taught tthe limitation of AI tools and correct the errors (only benefitting from increased...

Sure. But then they must accept that they are in the minority. While individually, they might want to stop here (and they might want to not use AI themselves), banning the technology would require a majority of the people sharing their views. Which I don't think is the case: some democratic...

It does. You might disagree with the idea that we (collectively) don't care about environmental damage, but it doesn't make the counter-argument about us generally not caring irrelevant. Which is what a whataboutism is all about. The argument "AI is contributing to the climate crisis" can be...

Except there is not the argument that was made, as I understood it. In the first case, referencing the other citizen doesn't make the criticism about USSR mistreating its citizen invalid, because the USSR cared about the right if its citizen (or at least pretended to). So the "what about..."...

To me, whataboutism is refering to the practice of the USSR responding to accusation about its blatant disregard for human rights by asking the US about the rights of its own minorities. It was sophistry, because the USSR had pledged to defend a lot of individual rights through international...

I'd say it's used by student to cheat at exams (which is an example of early adopting). It is a concern that hasn't been addressed correctly (but an urgent concern) in the law school I work with. Using ChatGPT to create course material and not checking the end result would certainly be viewed...

I don't think it's that widespread to be honest. People trying ChatGPT to see what it does? Sure. But as a core part of their work, I don't think it's massively used. Professional might be more inclined to use dedicated tools, and LexisNexis' AI assistant is only a few months old, and I don't...

I won't speak for the person you're responding to, but I feel that it's not whataboutism. Whataboutism would be if both things were unrelated. Here, the argument is "the fact that we use inefficient/unsustainable/unethical meat (or that we massively use plane and car travel burning oil, or that...

It's not irrelevant. It's just that we generally don't ban tools that have both positive and negative outcome. Many tools are dangerous if handled by unskilled users (cars, guns and medications come to mind) and yet are mostly available, even if they can be conditionned by a licence when the...

Indeed, but you don't test the exact same skills in a timed exam than in a work you can do at home, over a longer time. There are some exams that are done under supervision to prevent outside communication over a few days, but they are logistical nightmares and impractical for mass students. So...

You think it might have more transformative effect? Even a small change (word processing for all!) radically affected how many offices look with execs no longer having secretaries, after all.

At some point in the future, maybe, we can rely entirely on automated systems to replace jobs completely. This utopia isn't what we get today, unfortunately. Today, at best, AI is able to be integrated into production workflow to increase productivity. It can write a speech for you, but if...

Lower production costs have historically translated to lower price for goods (former luxury goods have become commonplace, even necessary goods) and services, like banking services, travel services, accountancy...

Another user in this thread explained that things where better 40 years ago, so maybe we should also stop doing all those other things and get back to doing them over the phone like we used to. We're simply choosing to do them conveniently with this infrastructure, considering the benefit...

Your whole body is now encased in an icy coffin. All your internal organs are congealed. You're dead. Also, frostbite will reduce your fine manipulation skills by 1% for the next two days. Somehow, the stacking criticals are what I remember mostly.