Judge decides case based on AI-hallucinated case law

and some people on here think even that was a bad idea, that being the automation trend.
Some people here think the world is flat, that doesn't mean they are right... People can think things all they want, that doesn't mean that the reality will change that the rest of us live in.

The question with LLM is if it ever will become what certain other people promise it's going to be like. There are certain cases, depending on the person operating it, and the specific case it's being used for, it can be a useful tool. It's a bit like that $20k house robot, at the moment it works, but by tele-operation, not exactly what was promised... People use it while they don't know how it works, and because what it spits out, it always sounds like it's true, thus people don't know if there are actually any errors, they just believe what it puts out. That is... Until they try to repair their toaster with a fork, because the LLM said it... We might call that natural selection... ;)

I am of the conviction that I work to live, not live to work. Thus if automation means there's less work, it means I can live more without working. The problem isn't the automation, the problem is how the benefits of that automation are divided. And we can fix that while keeping the automation... When the 1% or 10% holds all the benefits, the rest of the population can change the laws to make that no longer the case. But in certain countries more then others, the other 99% or 90% really doesn't want equal distribution of benefits, they want to become that 1% or 10% and F! the rest!
 

log in or register to remove this ad





Well ... not quite. The transition from hunters-gatherer to farmer meant that land became valuable, so the optimal strategy for a culture was to use the excess people not needed for food creation as a means to own more food-producing land. The first big revolution was not from hunter-gatherers to experts and technicians, it was to warriors.

The big early tech was then focused around how to more efficiently kill people and take their land.

Not quite.

They didn't kill people and take their land. They killed some people, and then claimed dominance over the land. The typical mode has been conquering, not genocide.

Which makes the food production angle sketchy logic, as you are increasing the ruled population when you take the land. We tell ourselves it is about resources, when it is as much, or more, about control.
 


Remove ads

Top