I know this is a rando podcast and you most likely won't listen to it. But it's totally worth it, just 10 minutes. It's about the science of how and why we lie to ourselves.
Everytime you take an action you do so in anticipation of a predicted future.
How did you predict that future? Using the past. Does your action always anticipate the correct future?
No. There's no way we can "know" the future. We can only do the best possible prediction.
And that is literally how all humans walk through life. We use the best possible predictor of the future to predict it. Right now the best possible predictor of the future points to one where AI will improve. That is a highly valid and highly likely outcome.
It's literally part of what common sense is at a very fundamental level here.
Your argument here is just wrong on every level. It's more akin to wishful thinking and deliberate self blindness or lying to oneself.
When your career, when your mastery over programming, when your intelligence which you held in high regard along with your career is threatened to be toppled as a useless and replaceable skill. Of course you lie to yourself. Of course you blind yourself to the raw reality of what is most likely to occur.
I mean the most realistic answer is that it's a probability. AI taking over may occur, it may not. That's a more neutral scientific answer. But this is not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing people trying to bend the narrative into one where there's no problem and nothing to worry about. When these people talk about AI they can't remain neutral.
They always have to turn the conversation into something personal and bend the conversation towards their own skillet relative to AI. Why? Because that is the fundamental thing that is driving their viewpoint. Their own personal role in society relative to AI.
The truly neutral party views the whole situation impartially without bringing his own personal situation into the conversation. The parent is not a neutral party and he's acting cliche. The pattern is classic and repeated over and over again by multitudes of people, especially programmers who hold their career and intelligence in high regard.
Don't believe me? Ask yourself. Are you proud of your career? Do you think of yourself as intelligent and good at programming? If so you fit the bill of what I described above. A biased person can never see his own bias but if I predict classic symptoms of bias without prompt maybe, just maybe he can move out of the zone of denial. But most likely this won't happen.
Boy you (or whatever LLM you are using) are verbose and presumptuous. You can continue to state simple falsehoods surrounded with patronizing bloviation, but that doesn't magically make them true.
I don't make my living from programming for one (which makes your rhetoric: "Are you proud of your career? Do you think of yourself as intelligent and good at programming?" retarded as a non-sequitur) and just highlights your own small minded points of view and lack of imagination.
> Right now the best possible predictor of the future points to one where AI will improve. That is a highly valid and highly likely outcome.
It's not valid because it is vacuous. Technology generally improves. But it is the specifics and details that matter, they are the only thing that matters. Saying "AI will improve" is saying nothing useful.
I think global thermonuclear war is a more likely disruptor in the rest of my lifetime than some AI nerd rapture.
> "Of course you lie to yourself. Of course you blind yourself to the raw reality of what is most likely to occur."
I am sorry that whatever schooling or training you had did not manage to explain that this style of rhetoric does nothing more than portray you as a condescending asshole.
> Their own personal role in society relative to AI.
You're just being a condescending twatwaffle since you are arguing with individuals in a forum of which you know nothing about. You clearly have no respect for others' opinions and feel the need to write walls of text to rationalize it.
I can admit to being condescending. But the point is I'm also generally right. You may not make your living from programming but you associate your self with "intelligence" and likely programming and you refuse to believe an AI can ever be superior to you.
>It's not valid because it is vacuous. Technology generally improves. But it is the specifics and details that matter, they are the only thing that matters. Saying "AI will improve" is saying nothing useful.
Exactly. When I repeat well known common sense facts, I've essentially stated nothing useful to people who HAVE common sense. Common sense is obvious. Everyone has common sense. You do too. The question is why are you constructing elaborate arguments to try to predict a future not inline with common sense? The answer is obvious, you can't face the truth. Pride and emotion make you turn away from common sense.
>I think global thermonuclear war is a more likely disruptor in the rest of my lifetime than some AI nerd rapture.
That's an intelligent statement. How many nuclear bombs were dropped on civilians in your lifetime versus how many AI break throughs happened in the last decade? Again. Common sense.
>I am sorry that whatever schooling or training you had did not manage to explain that this style of rhetoric does nothing more than portray you as a condescending asshole.
Remember that movie bird box where John Malkovich was a total ass hole? Well he not only was an ass hole, but he was pretty much right about everything while being an ass hole. If everyone listened to him they would've lived. That's what's going on here. I'm saying ass hole things, but those ass hole things are right.
>You're just being a condescending twatwaffle since you are arguing with individuals in a forum of which you know nothing about. You clearly have no respect for others' opinions and feel the need to write walls of text to rationalize it.
It's easy to prove me wrong. Put my condescending ass in it's place by proving me wrong. Every ass hole gets off at being completely and utterly right. You can pummel my ass into oblivion by taking me off my high horse. Or can you? You can't because I'm right and you're wrong.
"How many nuclear bombs were dropped on civilians in your lifetime versus how many AI break throughs happened in the last decade? Again. Common sense."
If this is the apex of your reasoning the basis of your perspective is pretty easy to understand.
The problem here is that from your end, no reasoning was applied. You've said and proven nothing. You only have the ability to mount personal attacks because reason and logic are not on your side.
Let's skip to the main topic rather then address some small irrelevant detail about thermonuclear war: I'm right about AI, and you are wrong. And you fucking know it.
I feel like I'm being trolled by yet another deltaonefour, deltaonenine, ... sock puppet (there were a ton more that I don't care to remember). I could be wrong, don't really care. In any event you guys would probably get along, talk about entropy or something.
https://radiolab.org/podcast/91618-lying-to-ourselves
I know this is a rando podcast and you most likely won't listen to it. But it's totally worth it, just 10 minutes. It's about the science of how and why we lie to ourselves.