My only complaint here is that there is a lot of very, very valid use cases for “AI” specifically “Agentic AI”.
We (including myself) may not like a lot of those uses because it devalues my fellow workers but it does not change the fact that it works.
The problem is everyone needs to be so goddamn polarizing and god forbid we have a mature honest discussion about the tools being built and how they are changing society as we know it.
We should be discussing and pushing for UBI across the world for decades now as youth unemployment is already at dangerous levels in continents like Africa (lol of course we don’t care because black people) but no instead we have asshats pushing a narrative of “AI bad”. It’s not. It has many purposes. Smarter people know this and it’s why it isn’t going away and the train is not going to stop if you don’t pull your head out of your ass.
/rant
I can’t wait to dip out of society and find somewhere in the middle of nowhere to live a quiet life with minimal technology in my life. I’m done with all of you. I stand by what I’ve said to my mum many times over the years. I hate people. I love persons.
The list of valid use cases for AI is bound by “what is the worst possible consequence of a mistake done here”, because the statistical distribution of mistakes in terms of severity of consequences of things like Agentic AI is uniform (meaning, they’re just as likely to do the worst mistakes with the nastiest consequences as they are doing the smallest mistakes), which it is not the case with humans who make more of an effort and give more attention to avoiding catastrophic mistakes and also have a “this is stupid” (i.e. don’t put glue in pizza, don’t tell a suicidal person to kill themselves) recognition capability which also stops a lot of the nastiest mistakes.
This is something which is not noticeable to most people because most people don’t have deep enough process experience in at least one expert domain and process analysis experience, to upfront recognized anything beyond the “in your face” elements of using AI (or using anything, really) in a process.
Very few people would think “what’s the risk profile for this business of giving this thing these responsabilities”.
So they seriously overestimate what are valid use cases for AI, something that the hype around it also pushes for: not a single AI vendor will ever mention just “error distribution” or anything close to it.
Obviously, when the thing blows up catastrophically by doing something which for a human is “obviously a bad idea”, THEN people recognized that AI is unsuitable for that, but by then its often too late.
(Easy example: lawyers using AI to make submissions to the Court and ending up disbarred because those submissions “quoted” invented case law).
So I don’t expect Agentic AI to fuck society up by taking a large fraction of the jobs, I expect Agentic AI to fuck society up by an accumulation over time of random catastrophic mistakes that kill people and collapse otherwise stable companies, mistakes that humans in such positions would never do or at least be way less likely to do.
It’s going to be akin to death by cummulative poisoning.
When human makes a mistake, they learn, they continue to enrich humanity, they make a blueprint how not to make the same mistake again, if not for humanity, but at least for themselves. It also fuels some creativity so one mistake might lead to something good later.
When a mistake generator makes a mistake, it’s just another mistake in a pile of mistakes that only worsen our collective human experience.
Don’t fall into this nihilistic bullshit, if humans weren’t capable of learning we wouldn’t be here in the first place. This narrative isn’t true and doesn’t help. It’s all invented by religions of old to better control humanity, and it wasn’t true then and isn’t true now
Do bees learn? Like how to deal with mites? Or do they just die off every 45 days and only get replaced by bees who accidentally happen to be a little better at dealing with mites?
I am not an expert on insectology or beeology, I don’t actually know do they learn or not. An emergent entity of a hive seems to be learning better than the individual insect, but we’re learning so much about them even now, I don’t feel comfortable to make any speculations.
I know about mammals a bit more, and know that humans do learn, but the hive mind learning works worse than in hiving insects.
I wouldn’t say “if humans weren’t capable of learning we wouldn’t be here in the first place” - I would say “by random evolution of circumstances, humans are where we are today - some capable of learning, some apparently not.”
the (human) hive mind learning works worse than in hiving insects.
That’s an entirely opinion driven statement. What is better, or worse? From whose perspective? Do you know what you don’t know? If you think you do, you’re wrong.
From my perspective, people are a squishy mess. AI/LLM are also somewhat of a squishy mess, but I find them to be a lot more consistent and predictable in their behavior than randomly selected people. And, as far as the hiring process to find “the right” people for a particular job, that’s a long complicated unpredictable usually costly and error prone process, even before you get to the point that the people you have engaged for a certain task might start to learn and improve in their role. I can hire AI agents for the equivalent of pennies per hour of equivalent human output, and while they have their issues, I can get as many of them as I want with that same predictable behavior / capability for just a few dollars more. They haven’t started suing for slip and fall (yet), their performance doesn’t degrade based on time of day, day of the week, phase of the moon. They don’t call out sick, or pregnant. They don’t want healthcare insurance… whatever they can do, they would seem to be the ideal employees to do it.
My only complaint here is that there is a lot of very, very valid use cases for “AI” specifically “Agentic AI”.
We (including myself) may not like a lot of those uses because it devalues my fellow workers but it does not change the fact that it works.
The problem is everyone needs to be so goddamn polarizing and god forbid we have a mature honest discussion about the tools being built and how they are changing society as we know it.
We should be discussing and pushing for UBI across the world for decades now as youth unemployment is already at dangerous levels in continents like Africa (lol of course we don’t care because black people) but no instead we have asshats pushing a narrative of “AI bad”. It’s not. It has many purposes. Smarter people know this and it’s why it isn’t going away and the train is not going to stop if you don’t pull your head out of your ass.
/rant
I can’t wait to dip out of society and find somewhere in the middle of nowhere to live a quiet life with minimal technology in my life. I’m done with all of you. I stand by what I’ve said to my mum many times over the years. I hate people. I love persons.
The list of valid use cases for AI is bound by “what is the worst possible consequence of a mistake done here”, because the statistical distribution of mistakes in terms of severity of consequences of things like Agentic AI is uniform (meaning, they’re just as likely to do the worst mistakes with the nastiest consequences as they are doing the smallest mistakes), which it is not the case with humans who make more of an effort and give more attention to avoiding catastrophic mistakes and also have a “this is stupid” (i.e. don’t put glue in pizza, don’t tell a suicidal person to kill themselves) recognition capability which also stops a lot of the nastiest mistakes.
This is something which is not noticeable to most people because most people don’t have deep enough process experience in at least one expert domain and process analysis experience, to upfront recognized anything beyond the “in your face” elements of using AI (or using anything, really) in a process.
Very few people would think “what’s the risk profile for this business of giving this thing these responsabilities”.
So they seriously overestimate what are valid use cases for AI, something that the hype around it also pushes for: not a single AI vendor will ever mention just “error distribution” or anything close to it.
Obviously, when the thing blows up catastrophically by doing something which for a human is “obviously a bad idea”, THEN people recognized that AI is unsuitable for that, but by then its often too late.
(Easy example: lawyers using AI to make submissions to the Court and ending up disbarred because those submissions “quoted” invented case law).
So I don’t expect Agentic AI to fuck society up by taking a large fraction of the jobs, I expect Agentic AI to fuck society up by an accumulation over time of random catastrophic mistakes that kill people and collapse otherwise stable companies, mistakes that humans in such positions would never do or at least be way less likely to do.
It’s going to be akin to death by cummulative poisoning.
Its not because humans make those mistakes all the time. It doesn’t need to be %100, it just needs to be like 95% to be better than humans.
When human makes a mistake, they learn, they continue to enrich humanity, they make a blueprint how not to make the same mistake again, if not for humanity, but at least for themselves. It also fuels some creativity so one mistake might lead to something good later.
When a mistake generator makes a mistake, it’s just another mistake in a pile of mistakes that only worsen our collective human experience.
Very few humans do that. Vast majority is far more sloppy than any AI slop I’ve ever seen.
Don’t fall into this nihilistic bullshit, if humans weren’t capable of learning we wouldn’t be here in the first place. This narrative isn’t true and doesn’t help. It’s all invented by religions of old to better control humanity, and it wasn’t true then and isn’t true now
Do bees learn? Like how to deal with mites? Or do they just die off every 45 days and only get replaced by bees who accidentally happen to be a little better at dealing with mites?
I am not an expert on insectology or beeology, I don’t actually know do they learn or not. An emergent entity of a hive seems to be learning better than the individual insect, but we’re learning so much about them even now, I don’t feel comfortable to make any speculations.
I know about mammals a bit more, and know that humans do learn, but the hive mind learning works worse than in hiving insects.
I wouldn’t say “if humans weren’t capable of learning we wouldn’t be here in the first place” - I would say “by random evolution of circumstances, humans are where we are today - some capable of learning, some apparently not.”
That’s an entirely opinion driven statement. What is better, or worse? From whose perspective? Do you know what you don’t know? If you think you do, you’re wrong.
From my perspective, people are a squishy mess. AI/LLM are also somewhat of a squishy mess, but I find them to be a lot more consistent and predictable in their behavior than randomly selected people. And, as far as the hiring process to find “the right” people for a particular job, that’s a long complicated unpredictable usually costly and error prone process, even before you get to the point that the people you have engaged for a certain task might start to learn and improve in their role. I can hire AI agents for the equivalent of pennies per hour of equivalent human output, and while they have their issues, I can get as many of them as I want with that same predictable behavior / capability for just a few dollars more. They haven’t started suing for slip and fall (yet), their performance doesn’t degrade based on time of day, day of the week, phase of the moon. They don’t call out sick, or pregnant. They don’t want healthcare insurance… whatever they can do, they would seem to be the ideal employees to do it.