Maybe some day the hammer thrower will come, but I suspect humanity is going to need to tread the hard and winding path for some generations to relearn in person the lessons a little prior study would have sufficed to teach. After all, we live in a leisure society with the greatest and easiest access to information in known human history.
I think the strength of hobby groups like this is that everyone is inherently curious and searching for knowledge. It would literally be easier for all of us to order a pre-made metal parts, but we are all here for something beyond ease. Am I the only one with friends and family that wonder why
I want to take the hard road and make something myself instead of just buying it from Home Depot??
😛 I think the majority of members' post in this thread have demonstrated this scrutiny and refuse to uncritically accept a
product like any other without careful considerations beyond pure subjective utility. This scrutiny would apply to any product or process, which is really what the benefit of these communities are to begin with.
But I share similar qualms about the larger public, especially based on interacting, teaching and evaluating the current youths. Few want to read, think or write because to them, isn't what ChatGPT is for? They just want to carry on with ease and leisure and trust the rest to AI and this is by design. Just like billions upon billions of dollars are spent shaping all sorts of consumption habits from Mcdonalds to Coke vs Pepsi. There will for sure be a generational knowledge gap and the vacuum will be filled with AI, which as designed will leave certain companies and stakeholders with unimaginable power and wealth (isn't this already what we have now). If we can scrutinize the predatorial subscription model of AutoDesk and OneDrive we definitely ought to be talking about AI the same way.
This study explores the neural and behavioral consequences of LLM-assisted essay writing. Participants were divided into three groups: LLM, Search Engine, and …
www.media.mit.edu
And in fairness, what is the level of the public's demand for knowledge for which they do not have a perceived immediate need? Does the public even want disturbing or discomfiting information drawn to their attention? Experiments suggest the vast majority do not, and strongly resent and resist attempts to draw such information to their attention|
Complexity alone is enough to disturb many: what seems difficult to understand is vexatious and threatening to self-esteem and the sense of "competency". And now attention spans are measured in fewer seconds than we have fingers.
The dominant concept of knowledge (not technical) is based on Enlightenment philosophy, where we are neutral subjects and "learning" is an additive process that fills a container. In reality, "learning" includes a process of "unlearning" which is inherently a violent act tied to the sense of self.
I guess if we want to know what the purposes of AI are we should look at how it is being used in other countries now?
It's really not a secret HERE either. In fact, this scrutiny is provided in mainstream tech news for anyone that even WANTS to pay attention. These companies and CEOs are quite clear and open about it. All the news and studies are available
if you care or just slightly willing to read past the surface. It's as simple as reading past the billions spent on McDonald's ads or the curated dealership sales guy talk which we are all able to do (this is not a knock against people's subjective and sentimental desire for McDonalds
🙂 I eat way too much McDonalds!). The emergence of majority of the tech enthusiasts forums I follow are a communities pursuing open development
in response to all the top-down, centralized corporate technology and enshittifaction. I am grateful for these non-complacent communities that take the hard road of collectively developing open-source software. They do not get enough credit or notice compared to the offerings of corporate giants, but how can they without the backing of billion dollar machines?
