It's become so bad that even quality history youtube channels are frequently using euphemisms like "moustache-man" instead of just saying "Hitler", to avoid their videos being buried by The Algorithm, and therefore cut severely into their viewership.
> even quality history youtube channels are frequently using euphemisms like "moustache-man" instead of just saying "Hitler"
That can be quite confusing. You had German mustache-man, Russian mustache-man, French mustache-man (Petain), French small-mustache-man (de Gaulle), Spanish small-moustache-man (Franco)
I'd like to add: we can't know a priori what will be needed to be known and what can safely remain behind an abstraction you just use.
That is revealed when our mental models grind against reality. Avoiding that friction at all costs is a problem because it will happen and you'll be unprepared when it becomes unavoidable.
Trusting some abstractions that have earned it but not all is how we deal with it. Limit your focus, and adapt. If you just trust all abstractions thrown in front of you until something breaks irreparably, you will be (person or organization) between a rock and a hard place and without any knowledge or skill on how to get out of that predicament.
That to me is the biggest risk in accepting the fallacy of general automation.
I’m in two minds about this, in some sense they did and it’s the same way in which the C code I write is mine, but the assembly underneath is an artifact of my intent, but I owe the compiler authors for it. On the other hand the cognitive distance between my C and the assembly is likely lower, but that’s because I’ve spent time staring at what was generated in order to figure out why my code was misbehaving. Which is itself not that dissimilar to figuring out how to get better at writing code with llms.
If you ask LLM to code something for you, and you then work on the code, then yes, there is partial ownership. Just like if you had asked another, maybe junior, developer to write a piece of code, and then you helped them make it better.
I think the difference involves how many layers of stuff someone claims is "theirs" and whether that claim of credit and expertise is valid.
Imagine a coworker writes some decent C code, but then at a meeting they start taking credit for the bytecode and the default optimizations done by the compiler.
That's analogous to people who write LLM prompts and then claim the same level of authorship over the code which was all generated and edited on an indirect level.
After you create an OSM account, there is also https://maproulette.org, which has tons of little tasks to fix, grouped into challenges, and many of them can be done using just the aerial photos, from the comfort of your seat.
Then there is also mapping for humanitarian purposes, https://tasks.hotosm.org/, which has mapping projects prepared by disaster response teams, and you can help by updating maps of areas recently affected by disasters. E.g. recently there was a lot of mapping in the area hit by the August river flood in Nepal.
It only becomes a problem if the actions you take, are a one way street and net negative.
I for sure take AGI serious enough for my job, that I will not take out a big loan anymore.
But there are also indications right? If a lot of smart people say similiar things and they are wrong, thats a lot better to have trusted them than believing some weirdo with a sign "Aliens are coming".
reply