For me, the primary mechanism for learning is doing projects.
And, doing projects in domains I'm unfamiliar with (and those I am) is massively sped up by AI.
I learn to do these projects with AI - it's different than learning to do it without AI, and I don't learn some steps I otherwise would, because AI can do those.
But, I start and finish and use and polish so many more projects in so many more domains, with AI, than I could without.
And, starting and finishing projects is the point for me, not learning obscure stuff that doesn't help there, so, I don't feel like I've missed out on much. You might look down on it, but, if I have AI and you don't, I will bet on me to finish a project before you, better than you, in almost any field where we have similar levels of experience.
IDK about frontier-pushing-pursuits, though. I've written algorithms by hand that I doubt AI ever would have, in its current state... but, then, at least a few of those I'd given up on, for lack of time, and when AI came along, I was able to go back and have it finish them. But, for me, the work wasn't the goal, or even my own accomplishment therein - I just wanted the result. If your motivations differ, you might not find AI as fucking awesome as I do.
Sure, you can be much more productive writing essays for example if you have AI write them. Homework of course is much faster and easier if ChatGPT does it for you. All of these things were possible even pre-AI by paying someone else to do things for you (though in some cases it would be considered cheating, but if we set that aside). You’ll definitely blow anyone out of the water who studies or writes for themselves. I also totally get that the productivity gains are so attractive you don’t mind not learning some or all of it. But we are talking about knowing and learning things. Or at least that’s what I thought the thread was about.
With traditional advertising you're being sold a fantasy. The advertisment is usually produced so you're self-inserting yourself into the production. So when you're seeing the fit and good looking cowboy smoking a Marlboro... You subconsciously think: that's who I wanna be, and consequently may be more likely to buy it.
Influencer marketing is however inherently contextualized to the para social relationship between the viewer and the creator. The people that buy the product do so because "their" creator told them about it.
At least that's been the feeling I've got on every sponsorship pitching to date. It's aimed at people that want to get closer to the Creator. At least in their head.
> Influencer marketing is however inherently contextualized to the para social relationship between the viewer and the creator. The people that buy the product do so because "their" creator told them about it. ... It's aimed at people that want to get closer to the Creator. At least in their head.
Or they just have trouble differentiating between the trusted endorsement of a real social relationship and the paid endorsement of a para-social relationship, and that confusion affords the latter an exploitable amount of trust. In their head, they're already "close" to the influencer, not trying to get there, basically.
It probably works even better once you atomize individuals, and inhibit/discourage natural social relationships. Those social instincts needs somewhere to go, and it's best for all of society if that's into the advertiser's trap via an influencer.
Oh, they're more than a drop in the ocean for sure. Which doesn't mean there's not other things to address, where population is definitely not the main problematic factor, but consumerism is (and throwaway culture). This kind of whataboutism is fallacious, you can do better.
EDIT: As a small anecdotal point, any new human activity that is measured in GW of power consumption is not a drop in the ocean. Admitted, some of these data centers projects are "only" in the 100s MW scale, but all of this combined is increasing electricity consumption by a vast amount overall.
I looked (*asked AI), and AI data centers are projected to hit 850-920 TWh by 2027, if you count the energy required to produce all of the buildings and equipment. This is about 3% of global electricity consumption, or 0.5% of global energy (counting fuels, etc., outside of electricity).
So, yeah, that's a lot.
Also, there are at least a few data centers popping up around me (11 GW Fermi, > 1 GW Crusoe). I live in a desert, and water is scarce, and what's used is mostly non-renewable (pumped from an aquifer), and these data centers evaporate water at an alarming rate.
So... yeah, that's pretty significant... much more so locally than globally, but globally, too.
Global electricity consumption is up about 600% since 1970. So, that 2027 projection of 3% of global in 2027 is equivalent to about 20% of all electricity consumed in 1970. A fair amount, for sure.
IDK if it's worth 3% of global electricity consumption. I know I'd be happy to spend that percentage of my own home's electricity on it, for what it does for me, and I think the world would be better for it. The alternative is accomplishing far less... easily halving my productive output (10x is my honest estimation of productivity boost from AI). I do not believe in the value of my labor, I believe in the value of the product thereof. So, IDK... hopefully it's not a zero sum game, and AI (or motivated people with AI) can help it all pan out.
> It has literally contributed to suicide and murders
So have many pharmaceuticals that are generally regarded as beneficial. Suicide is a side effect of more than a few, but doctors disregard that, believing that the results are worth the risk.
Honestly, a lot of people could stand to be a lot more informed about what they're getting into. People could use a lot more skepticism when interacting with AI, social media, news feeds, and basically every other form of media, especially those originating at the top of some pyramid or another.
I don't tend to like controls or regulations, though. Not that they aren't needed, but I don't trust the people responsible for writing and enforcing them. More often than not, they are just the top of the pyramid squashing everything beneath it.
It gave my grandmother strokes. She never smoked again, and was still around, but never quite the same. She told me once, "I miss smoking every day. I loved it so much."
I have had a pipe or another over the years, but its kind of the same thing to me, though it feels like more effort than a cigar and just more maintenance... Cigars are easy, "quick" to get going, and if you sit it in your cigar friendly ash tray they turn themselves off for whenever you want to pick them back up.
Never tried them, myself, beyond being handed a few over the years. Had a pipe for long enough to go through a few bags of tobacco. I've got an addictive personality, so I appreciated that there was a lengthy ritual just to get started. Also, I liked the feeling of the warmth in my hand, and that it smelled amazing. I don't get that from cigars, they smell terrible.
Apparently, though, you can figure out pipes well enough to just have no trouble. I've known a few old men that always seemed to have one going.
To be clear, it's 100%, definitely not good for you - but the level of harm doesn't seem to be even close to cigarettes or chewing tobacco.
The amount consumed is much less, the smoke shouldn't be entering your lungs, and if there are tons of good, "all-natural" tobacco out there without all the additives put in by cigarette companies.
There have been calls in the Netherlands (perhaps even at the EU level) to ban filtered cigarettes, for the simple reason that they are misleading and offer no protection, but are harmful to the environment because of the non-degradable micro-plastics.
It's just because cigars (and presumably pipes?) are puffed, not inhaled. You absorb nicotine through the mucus membrane in your mouth (not as much), and otherwise enjoy the flavor. The practice with cigarettes is to inhale into your lungs. You could technically puff a cigarette I guess.
People make a big deal out additives and accelerants, but the carcinogens are 99% from smoke, burning plant matter. In that respect, pure tobacco isn't meaningfully safer. That said if you "puff", that's probably safer, though still risky (mouth cancer, and you're still going to inhale some amount of smoke).
And, doing projects in domains I'm unfamiliar with (and those I am) is massively sped up by AI.
I learn to do these projects with AI - it's different than learning to do it without AI, and I don't learn some steps I otherwise would, because AI can do those.
But, I start and finish and use and polish so many more projects in so many more domains, with AI, than I could without.
And, starting and finishing projects is the point for me, not learning obscure stuff that doesn't help there, so, I don't feel like I've missed out on much. You might look down on it, but, if I have AI and you don't, I will bet on me to finish a project before you, better than you, in almost any field where we have similar levels of experience.
IDK about frontier-pushing-pursuits, though. I've written algorithms by hand that I doubt AI ever would have, in its current state... but, then, at least a few of those I'd given up on, for lack of time, and when AI came along, I was able to go back and have it finish them. But, for me, the work wasn't the goal, or even my own accomplishment therein - I just wanted the result. If your motivations differ, you might not find AI as fucking awesome as I do.
reply