um… it’s not a ‘fake’ debate. If you think I’m wrong then feel free to explain why.
I work with computers and have a pretty good grasp of what they can do and what they can’t. I’ve been in the business for a long time, I’ve watched the way it has evolved, and that’s why I have a rather negative view of it all. “AI” is mostly BS. Most people misunderstand what it is, and the term is being bandied about rather like “information superhighway” was a couple of decades ago.
IMO “regulation” will build more misunderstandings on top of the original misunderstandings.
It seems to me you simply don’t like my assessment of the technology.
Professor Stuart Russell explores the future of work and one of the most concerning issues raised by Artificial Intelligence: the threat to jobs. How will the economy adapt as work is increasingly done by machines? Economists’ forecasts range from rosy scenarios of human-AI teamwork, to dystopian visions in which most people are excluded from the economy altogether. Was the economist Keynes correct when he said that we were born to “strive”? If much of the work in future will be carried out by machines, what does that mean for humans? What will we do?
I don’t like your assumptions about me. As for your assessment, they seem predicated on your bias, which , yet again, seems to be, “I’m right and everyone else is wrong because they’re lazy and stupid.”
Just seems too needy, too “lonely man on the internet” kind of thing for me to really give a crap about.
So, imma head out and if you try and continue this kind of confrontational discourse, which you seem to think is a debate, you’ll just go in the Friday bin where I won’t see you. If that happens I’m 100% ok with you taking it as a win.
I think you’ve completely misunderstood what I wrote back there. It only appears “confrontational” to you because you don’t like it. The typical way it goes is to say “no, that doesn’t sound right, and here’s why”.
That’s fine if I knew anything about AI. I do not a have predetermined view. Ive read one whole book about it. I’ve made that clear. Why are you asking me to defend a position I do not have? Seems dicky.
Anyway, I’m not here for this, so back to the lecture.
It will be interesting to see how higher ed utilizes and deals with and regulates AI in academia. Be interesting to see if state, local and the federal governments keep following their progressive lead or if this is the rock that breaks woke to pieces?
And cheers for Florida. Getting ahead of generative AI is a solid move to combat that whole “Yer from Florida? Yukyyuk” slur.
The University of Florida launched a $70 million AI initiative in 2020 with funding from the chip-manufacturing giant Nvidia. Sid Dobrin, an English professor who is part of the initiative, says that it will sponsor a competition this year in which students can win prize money for the most creative use of generative text or image AI. These schools are preparing to feed employers’ hunger for AI-savvy graduates. “I always say: You are not going to lose your job to AI,” Dobrin told me. “You are going to lose your job to somebody who understands how to use AI.”
Endless applications if used as a complimentary skill set.
But just like the internet, which spawned smartphones and social-media sites that few people could have foreseen, AI will undercut the most basic patterns in higher education. “It’s perfectly reasonable to hold in your head both thoughts,” Isbell told me. “It’s not going to be the big, destructive force that we think it’s going to be anytime soon. Also, higher education will be completely unrecognizable in 15 years because of this technology. We just don’t really know how.”
Totally agree. High school education needs to focus on the technology as well to prep them for what the college will teach. What the path seems to be is one in one bots for each kid, imo. From what’s my schedule to you seem to be screaming a lot in class today Sharon personalized bots. Completely remove accountability and put it in a machine that won’t forget to remind them that they’re not in class yet. I wonder, a collar maybe, with electrical impulse incentives?
This is why “AI” is a very useful tool. But “AI” is kind of a broad brush, and it’s not all protect ethical causes. we do indeed government regulation, not unlike any other useful tools that can also cause issues. Vehicles, weapons, chemicals and so on.
It would just be ideal if the government did it logically and, more importantly, the people didnt tie the govs hands behind their backs so they literally can’t do something without committing political suicide.
2 sides of the same coin. This kind of rational thought seems difficult for both sides to be honest transparent, and make good regulation/law. But it is quite simple/easy when idiots get out of the way. The humans being retarded point Finley makes I cannot agree with more. but to be fair, that is usually the core root of every problem, not just AI.
