Computers are the worst and should be treated with nothing but disdain and trepidation. Just talk with anyone who has worked with computers for more than an hour.
* Computers and other automations never made creative decisions before and were perfect for automating mechanical, rote tasks. Like going through a column of numbers and summing them up, or resizing a folder full of images
* AI attempts to make decisions that we would otherwise make creatively: yes, it may not be truly intelligent, but it undeniably makes decisions that, IF we made them, we would use part of our creative brains
That is the FUNDAMENTAL distinction between AI and other forms of computing: AI, while not intrinsically different than other forms of computing, attempts to take over our creatively-functioning brains. That is why I am against it. Society needs creatively functioning brains to be healthy, and an amalgamation of AI with humanity will have forseen and unforseen consequences, including a subtle but significant modification of our mental operation to make us forget what it is to be truly human.
>Computers and other automations never made creative decisions before
Oh they absolutely did. Even the early optimizing compilers discovered new pathways and created code that surprised even their authors. The only difference is that now regular people can see and appreciate what computers create.
This is a severely limited and pedantic example. Generally, most algorithms don't operate like that and even so, their "creativity" was limited to highly technical areas of development.
attempts to take over our creatively-functioning brain
I wonder if you are underestimating the extent to which the limitations and design decisions baked into computers and software (and into analog tools before them!) have always shaped our creative processes.
For me, AI code assistants have greatly accelerated my creativity as an engineer. Because they help with boilerplate (and sometimes even have an idea worth considering) they allow me to explore more ideas in less time.
This was very apparent to me when doing the "1 billion row challenge" that folks were talking about a few weeks back. I was able to rapidly try out probably a dozen approaches before finding a well-performing one.
(Now, it must also be said that the gnarly micro-optimizations in the fastest solutions were clearly achieved "by hand." And I would also point out that ChatGPT/Copilot lead me down a few dead ends as well. But over all, a big win for me)
What's key to me about AI code assistants is that they augment my engineering work. I am still writing code, I still need to understand everything, the architecture ideas are still mine.
Comments
That just sounds like anti computers but few decades ago
Computers are the worst and should be treated with nothing but disdain and trepidation. Just talk with anyone who has worked with computers for more than an hour.
Not exactly. There is a qualitative distinction:
* Computers and other automations never made creative decisions before and were perfect for automating mechanical, rote tasks. Like going through a column of numbers and summing them up, or resizing a folder full of images
* AI attempts to make decisions that we would otherwise make creatively: yes, it may not be truly intelligent, but it undeniably makes decisions that, IF we made them, we would use part of our creative brains
That is the FUNDAMENTAL distinction between AI and other forms of computing: AI, while not intrinsically different than other forms of computing, attempts to take over our creatively-functioning brains. That is why I am against it. Society needs creatively functioning brains to be healthy, and an amalgamation of AI with humanity will have forseen and unforseen consequences, including a subtle but significant modification of our mental operation to make us forget what it is to be truly human.
>Computers and other automations never made creative decisions before
Oh they absolutely did. Even the early optimizing compilers discovered new pathways and created code that surprised even their authors. The only difference is that now regular people can see and appreciate what computers create.
This is a severely limited and pedantic example. Generally, most algorithms don't operate like that and even so, their "creativity" was limited to highly technical areas of development.
For me, AI code assistants have greatly accelerated my creativity as an engineer. Because they help with boilerplate (and sometimes even have an idea worth considering) they allow me to explore more ideas in less time.
This was very apparent to me when doing the "1 billion row challenge" that folks were talking about a few weeks back. I was able to rapidly try out probably a dozen approaches before finding a well-performing one.
(Now, it must also be said that the gnarly micro-optimizations in the fastest solutions were clearly achieved "by hand." And I would also point out that ChatGPT/Copilot lead me down a few dead ends as well. But over all, a big win for me)
What's key to me about AI code assistants is that they augment my engineering work. I am still writing code, I still need to understand everything, the architecture ideas are still mine.
If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls.
You are Plato and I claim my $5.
We were against bonzaibuddy and other "helpful" extensions installed against our will back then too.
So? It's still on point.
We should have had more caution with computers encroaching everything back then too.