To stay with the paint analogy, AI is more like a paint roller that can paint by itself.
Just tell it what color you want the room to be, and walk away. Did it remove the original coat properly? Sand, prime, and double recoat? No idea, it looks good at the moment. But we’ll find out in a couple years when the cracks and bubbles start showing.
…which would be a useful continuation of the analogy if not for the fact that 95% of human house painters rush through jobs, cut costs on materials, and overcharge.
Just like every other new technology before it, those who oppose love to compare the lowest quality output of the new technology to the output of the Top 5% of human craftspeople.
For anything AI can do, there are MILLIONS of lazy humans taking 100 times longer pumping out the same or worse quality work at 10 times the cost.
Eh, not really, and it isn’t really an argument but more of a lighthearted prediction.
I think the big question is whether or not the “frontier” models continue to be available and evolve, because the business model for running them seems very unsound.
I kinda hope the AI bubble busts, and that afterwards some of the efforts turn toward making open source models more performant and powerful.
Isn’t the entire point of computers to achieve a result faster than we could without them?
Your argument seems like bemoaning the invention of the paint roller because people won’t learn how to use brushes or their hands to paint walls.
Work output isn’t inherently more valuable just because the job was harder to do, or took more effort.
To stay with the paint analogy, AI is more like a paint roller that can paint by itself.
Just tell it what color you want the room to be, and walk away. Did it remove the original coat properly? Sand, prime, and double recoat? No idea, it looks good at the moment. But we’ll find out in a couple years when the cracks and bubbles start showing.
…which would be a useful continuation of the analogy if not for the fact that 95% of human house painters rush through jobs, cut costs on materials, and overcharge.
Just like every other new technology before it, those who oppose love to compare the lowest quality output of the new technology to the output of the Top 5% of human craftspeople.
For anything AI can do, there are MILLIONS of lazy humans taking 100 times longer pumping out the same or worse quality work at 10 times the cost.
Eh, not really, and it isn’t really an argument but more of a lighthearted prediction.
I think the big question is whether or not the “frontier” models continue to be available and evolve, because the business model for running them seems very unsound.
I kinda hope the AI bubble busts, and that afterwards some of the efforts turn toward making open source models more performant and powerful.