Basically AI is generally a decent answer to the needle in a haystack problem. Sure, a human with infinite time and attention can find the needle and perhaps more accurately than an AI could, but practically speaking if there’s just 10 needles in a haystack it’s considered a lost cause to find any of them.
With AI it might find in that same stack 30 needles, of which only 7 of them are the needles, which means the AI finds more wrong answers than right, but ultimately you do end up finding 7 needles when you would have missed all 10 before, coming out ahead.
So long as you don’t let an AI rule out review of a scan that a human really would have reviewed, it seems a win to potentially have more overall scans get a decent review and maybe catch things earlier in otherwise impractical preventative scans
The “luddite” reaction is largely a reaction to the overhype applied by the industry that pretends the current wave of text/image generators is general intelligence and in conjunction with robotics can replace every job and allow the upper class folks to live a full life without that pesky labor class.
So it’s naturally to expect a wave of such hype pretending it’s unambiguously amazing and perfect to get hit with a counter that’s overly dismissive and treats AI as a very bad brand. Also, in some contexts even if it is a net win, it’s still kind of annoying. In my haystack example, a human would have reviewed 23 things confidently declared by the AI to be needles and said no to them. Practically speaking, that’s unimaginably better than reviewing millions of not-needles to get to some needles, but we are more annoyed because in our mind the things presented were supposed to be needles. Same applies to a lot of generative AI use, it might provide a decent chunk of content that’s nearly usable 20% of the time so quick as to be worth it, but it’s hard to ignore the 80% of suggestions that it throws at you that are unusably bad. Depends on your job and your niche as to what the percentage will be. From a creative perspective, it generates milquetoast stuff, which may suffice for backgrounds and stuff that doesn’t matter, but is a waste of time when attempted as the key creative elements.
Broadly society has to navigate the nuanced middle ground, where it can be pretty good assistive technology but not go all out on it. Except of course there are areas likely to be significantly fully automated, like customer support or food order taking (though I prefer kiosks/apps for more precise ordering through tapping my way through, but either way not a human).
That’s fine, just saying so long as there are people pumping ridiculous amounts of money into the fiction that it can do anything and everything I won’t fault folks for having the counter reaction of being overly dismissive/repulsed by mentions of it.
I’m hopeful for the day when the hype subsides and it settles into the appropriate level of usefulness and expectations, complete with perhaps less ludicrous overspend on the infrastructure.
Basically AI is generally a decent answer to the needle in a haystack problem. Sure, a human with infinite time and attention can find the needle and perhaps more accurately than an AI could, but practically speaking if there’s just 10 needles in a haystack it’s considered a lost cause to find any of them.
With AI it might find in that same stack 30 needles, of which only 7 of them are the needles, which means the AI finds more wrong answers than right, but ultimately you do end up finding 7 needles when you would have missed all 10 before, coming out ahead.
So long as you don’t let an AI rule out review of a scan that a human really would have reviewed, it seems a win to potentially have more overall scans get a decent review and maybe catch things earlier in otherwise impractical preventative scans
Despite what the luddites would have you believe, AI is an amazing assistive tool when paired with a human reviewing the results.
The “luddite” reaction is largely a reaction to the overhype applied by the industry that pretends the current wave of text/image generators is general intelligence and in conjunction with robotics can replace every job and allow the upper class folks to live a full life without that pesky labor class.
So it’s naturally to expect a wave of such hype pretending it’s unambiguously amazing and perfect to get hit with a counter that’s overly dismissive and treats AI as a very bad brand. Also, in some contexts even if it is a net win, it’s still kind of annoying. In my haystack example, a human would have reviewed 23 things confidently declared by the AI to be needles and said no to them. Practically speaking, that’s unimaginably better than reviewing millions of not-needles to get to some needles, but we are more annoyed because in our mind the things presented were supposed to be needles. Same applies to a lot of generative AI use, it might provide a decent chunk of content that’s nearly usable 20% of the time so quick as to be worth it, but it’s hard to ignore the 80% of suggestions that it throws at you that are unusably bad. Depends on your job and your niche as to what the percentage will be. From a creative perspective, it generates milquetoast stuff, which may suffice for backgrounds and stuff that doesn’t matter, but is a waste of time when attempted as the key creative elements.
Broadly society has to navigate the nuanced middle ground, where it can be pretty good assistive technology but not go all out on it. Except of course there are areas likely to be significantly fully automated, like customer support or food order taking (though I prefer kiosks/apps for more precise ordering through tapping my way through, but either way not a human).
The nuanced middle ground is what I said, treating it as an assistive tool with human review.
That’s fine, just saying so long as there are people pumping ridiculous amounts of money into the fiction that it can do anything and everything I won’t fault folks for having the counter reaction of being overly dismissive/repulsed by mentions of it.
I’m hopeful for the day when the hype subsides and it settles into the appropriate level of usefulness and expectations, complete with perhaps less ludicrous overspend on the infrastructure.
Simp all you want.
You’ll also be shivering in the streets before long.
I always was going to under a capitalist system.