I never once said you said AI is capable of thinking. I said the article is intended at de-mystifying AI dogmatists, as in dogmatic supporters, that think it can. Further, you’ve only supplied evidence that misusing and misunderstanding the purpose of AI and its limitations can be harmful, not how it is intrinsically damaging. The article you supplied disagrees with this idea.
This is silly. Now that it’s clear that the article is more in line with what I’m saying, that we need to be careful and understand its limitations and not confuse it for cognition, but that we can still use it, you’re just calling it a mental off-ramp. Here is the actual text:
Computers don’t actually do anything. They don’t write, or play; they don’t even compute. Which doesn’t mean we can’t play with computers, or use them to invent, or make, or problem-solve. The new AI is unexpectedly reshaping ways of working and making, in the arts and sciences, in industry, and in warfare. We need to come to terms with the transformative promise and dangers of this new tech. But it ought to be possible to do so without succumbing to bogus claims about machine minds.
It directly states that there is transformative promise in AI, and that it’s changing how we work and make in arts, sciences, industry, and warfare. Message the author if you want to check if they were just providing a mental off-ramp, but I’m going to take the author at the text, as written, directly having a more grounded and materialist analysis than yours.
The author gave zero examples, so I have to assume it was rhetorical. Either way I’m not required to agree with every single statement they made. My takeaway is as I have described.
That’s a bit of a copout, isn’t it? I read your article and largerly agreed with it, but now that I’ve pointed out that it and I agree, you don’t like it? I mean, sure, you don’t have to agree with it and can have your own analysis, but when you substitute an argument with an article to make your point for you and I actually read it, then suddenly that’s no good, that’s shallow.
The overarching argument in the piece is that struggle is what makes us human.
By outsourcing cognitive tasks to these machines (which, kncidentally, we agree cannot do what they say on the tin), we are losing a central part of what we are.
You’ve called me silly, weird, shallow, dishonest, you’ve continually deflected, and you have followed me around these forums to do it. All while clinging to a rigid orthodoxy around a theory of production and consumption that is clearly insufficient to describe this moment in history.
This is just an argument against all tools like calculators, though. I haven’t deflected anything, I’ve answered you at your arguments. I disagree. Further, AI does not remove “what makes us human” any more than a calculator does. It can’t replace cognition, as you said. Your point’s natural conclusion is that, since “struggle is what makes us human,” tools that alleviate that struggle in some ways take away our humanity. It’s a deeply reactionary viewpoint, it glorifies the past and justifies suffering.
Marxism isn’t “clearly insufficient to describe this moment in history,” Marxism has evolved and adapted over the years. It fully encompasses AI, in that AI is nothing truly new. You don’t really understand what you’re trying to argue against, and you disagree with the base purpose of articles you use in place of your own arguments.
And as for following you around, I sort Lemmy.ml by new usually. If you make a bunch of posts clearly gesturing towards interactions we’ve had, I’ll respond.
Then this is even less clear, what on Earth is “my particular orthodoxy?” And further, the calculator is absolutely an apt comparison. A calculator is a system designed with logic by human hands to shortcut the process of someone, say, multiplying two numbers, that they otherwise would have had to do by hand. The calculator isn’t thinking, and neither is AI, it’s simply a system that mimics its inputs and weights them towards its prompts. Neither the calculator nor the AI thinks, but that doesn’t mean they are harmful to use, nor does it mean that neither has no use-cases.
As for being reactionary, glorifying struggle and using it to oppose the forward progression of technology on the basis of it harming a metaphysical “human spirit” is reactionary. I don’t mean it as an insult so much as to point out that it quite literally is reactionary. Labor should be centered, not struggle, and thus any tool that can be used to assist labor should be understood properly, including its limitations, like your article stated.
Either way, if you want to stop this, then be my guest.
I didn’t ignore it, you took the third paragraph as the only point and ignored everything I highlighted.
See my edits which I was still typing when you replied
Alright, regarding your edits:
I never once said you said AI is capable of thinking. I said the article is intended at de-mystifying AI dogmatists, as in dogmatic supporters, that think it can. Further, you’ve only supplied evidence that misusing and misunderstanding the purpose of AI and its limitations can be harmful, not how it is intrinsically damaging. The article you supplied disagrees with this idea.
This is silly. Now that it’s clear that the article is more in line with what I’m saying, that we need to be careful and understand its limitations and not confuse it for cognition, but that we can still use it, you’re just calling it a mental off-ramp. Here is the actual text:
It directly states that there is transformative promise in AI, and that it’s changing how we work and make in arts, sciences, industry, and warfare. Message the author if you want to check if they were just providing a mental off-ramp, but I’m going to take the author at the text, as written, directly having a more grounded and materialist analysis than yours.
The author gave zero examples, so I have to assume it was rhetorical. Either way I’m not required to agree with every single statement they made. My takeaway is as I have described.
That’s a bit of a copout, isn’t it? I read your article and largerly agreed with it, but now that I’ve pointed out that it and I agree, you don’t like it? I mean, sure, you don’t have to agree with it and can have your own analysis, but when you substitute an argument with an article to make your point for you and I actually read it, then suddenly that’s no good, that’s shallow.
The overarching argument in the piece is that struggle is what makes us human.
By outsourcing cognitive tasks to these machines (which, kncidentally, we agree cannot do what they say on the tin), we are losing a central part of what we are.
You’ve called me silly, weird, shallow, dishonest, you’ve continually deflected, and you have followed me around these forums to do it. All while clinging to a rigid orthodoxy around a theory of production and consumption that is clearly insufficient to describe this moment in history.
This is just an argument against all tools like calculators, though. I haven’t deflected anything, I’ve answered you at your arguments. I disagree. Further, AI does not remove “what makes us human” any more than a calculator does. It can’t replace cognition, as you said. Your point’s natural conclusion is that, since “struggle is what makes us human,” tools that alleviate that struggle in some ways take away our humanity. It’s a deeply reactionary viewpoint, it glorifies the past and justifies suffering.
Marxism isn’t “clearly insufficient to describe this moment in history,” Marxism has evolved and adapted over the years. It fully encompasses AI, in that AI is nothing truly new. You don’t really understand what you’re trying to argue against, and you disagree with the base purpose of articles you use in place of your own arguments.
And as for following you around, I sort Lemmy.ml by new usually. If you make a bunch of posts clearly gesturing towards interactions we’ve had, I’ll respond.
I didn’t say that Marxism is insufficient, I said your particular orthodoxy is, and I was very careful to phrase it that way.
And the fact that you’ve just compared calculation to thought proves my point yet again.
Then you take a phrase out of the context of the conversation and article and call me a reactionary, which is absolutely wild.
I made the other post to try to get different perspectives, not to have you follow me around.
Kindly stop with all this.
Then this is even less clear, what on Earth is “my particular orthodoxy?” And further, the calculator is absolutely an apt comparison. A calculator is a system designed with logic by human hands to shortcut the process of someone, say, multiplying two numbers, that they otherwise would have had to do by hand. The calculator isn’t thinking, and neither is AI, it’s simply a system that mimics its inputs and weights them towards its prompts. Neither the calculator nor the AI thinks, but that doesn’t mean they are harmful to use, nor does it mean that neither has no use-cases.
As for being reactionary, glorifying struggle and using it to oppose the forward progression of technology on the basis of it harming a metaphysical “human spirit” is reactionary. I don’t mean it as an insult so much as to point out that it quite literally is reactionary. Labor should be centered, not struggle, and thus any tool that can be used to assist labor should be understood properly, including its limitations, like your article stated.
Either way, if you want to stop this, then be my guest.