For 100,000+ years humans have been very adaptable to new technology. Lets see how we do with AI.
But when reporting turned into "journalism" what we got became more useless than before. Instead of finding/using people who could dig and find interesting stuff and tell us about it (reporting) we began getting people who were good at stringing wors together into pleasant sentences *journalists). The first is way more work, so it was done by essentially blue-colar, roll up your sleeves and do the dirty job types. The second takes less effort, especially when the individuals doing it are roughly interchangeable, like cogs. SO the lazy griftrs moved in.
A couple of decades ago even the NYT fired "journalists" who made up their stories and 'sources'. Now they deliberately hire the same types. Replacing them with AI wold be way cheaper and no difference would be apparent.
I will never want an AI's opinion on anything. The very idea is nonsensical. All these people getting giddy at the thought of better and better AI keep forgetting there's a very real difference between a brain and a mind.
Someday movies will be as easy to make as microwave popcorn and I hate microwave popcorn, so people will stop living in their bedrooms and go outside. Plays will take over as group entertainment and orgies will replace porn.
I view AI the way Nancy Pelosi viewed Obamacare. No, not "we have to pass it to see what's inside of it," thought there is that -- we won't know what AI is capable of until it is capable of it. But no, I was thinking more of her other memorable quote: how artists, freed from the need to hold down a job to obtain health benefits, would be able to dedicate themselves to their craft and create so many wonderful works for us all. Imagine all the great poetry they will produce, she exclaimed. Well, here we are, 14 years later, and we're all up to our elbows in poetry. Or something.
No AI could replace you, jt. Your epic snark - which I live for - could never be supplanted by anyONE or anyTHING.
For 100,000+ years humans have been very adaptable to new technology. Lets see how we do with AI.
But when reporting turned into "journalism" what we got became more useless than before. Instead of finding/using people who could dig and find interesting stuff and tell us about it (reporting) we began getting people who were good at stringing wors together into pleasant sentences *journalists). The first is way more work, so it was done by essentially blue-colar, roll up your sleeves and do the dirty job types. The second takes less effort, especially when the individuals doing it are roughly interchangeable, like cogs. SO the lazy griftrs moved in.
A couple of decades ago even the NYT fired "journalists" who made up their stories and 'sources'. Now they deliberately hire the same types. Replacing them with AI wold be way cheaper and no difference would be apparent.
I will never want an AI's opinion on anything. The very idea is nonsensical. All these people getting giddy at the thought of better and better AI keep forgetting there's a very real difference between a brain and a mind.
Computers emulate reality well.
You never try to emulate reality.
Someday movies will be as easy to make as microwave popcorn and I hate microwave popcorn, so people will stop living in their bedrooms and go outside. Plays will take over as group entertainment and orgies will replace porn.
It’s a win win.
I view AI the way Nancy Pelosi viewed Obamacare. No, not "we have to pass it to see what's inside of it," thought there is that -- we won't know what AI is capable of until it is capable of it. But no, I was thinking more of her other memorable quote: how artists, freed from the need to hold down a job to obtain health benefits, would be able to dedicate themselves to their craft and create so many wonderful works for us all. Imagine all the great poetry they will produce, she exclaimed. Well, here we are, 14 years later, and we're all up to our elbows in poetry. Or something.
So AI will FINALLY enable the Marxist dream. Schweet!!