plastic_enjoyer
plastic_enjoyer on Hacker News
I don't think this is a red flag. I don't see anything wrong with a therapist speaking like that because this statement is often made after years of working with the patient and not after the first few hours of therapy. In my time I worked in a psychiatric ward we had many patients who were considered "austherapiert", i.e. the treatments they have undergone over the years have not worked. In some cases, we are talking about patients who have been in and out of the psychiatry ward on a regular basis for over 20 years undergoing different treatments without their condition improving. People who have been suffering from their illness for decades, and we're not just talking about depression, but also illnesses such as schizophrenia, BPD, bipolar personality disorder, dementia, etc. Many of these patients take medication to manage the symptoms of their illness, but the side effects are often perceived as worse than the actual illness. And even with medication, a normal life is often no longer possible. People lose their jobs, their family, their friends - their whole life because of their mental illness. It's not only about the internal suffering, but also that their life irretrievably breaks apart and due to the symptoms of the illness building a new life may be not possible.
I think it's a bit short-sighted to assume that the future development of AI models will only come from large corporations or research institutions. At the moment, the training still requires a lot of computing resources and a lot of data - but these are limitations that are not permanent. Since the AI boom that Alex triggered in 2012, the development and optimization of models and training has improved very quickly, to the point that even hackers and enthusiasts can create very good models with a little money. Just because a government heavily regulates AI and possibly bans open weights doesn't mean that people on the fringes of legality will abide by it.
When was this time?
> The standard for that evidence should be very different than the standard for reproducible physics, chemistry and biology experiments.
I don't really see why we should treat evidence coming from surveys differently than evidence coming from physics, chemistry or biology experiments as long as surveys are well constructed, fulfill the criterion of validity and reliability and are reproducible. Yes, they are not 'hard facts' but often the only option to measure latent variables or fuzzy constructs. If they do this in a reproducible way I don't see the issue here.
On the other hand, 'hard sciences' such as neuroscience and medical science have a big problem with non-reproducible studies, even though they use more 'objective' measurement methods.
I think more people should participate in the luddite theatre. Luddites weren't against automation and technological advances per se but that the profits of increased productivity weren't shared. The people that are profiting off AI generated art today don't want to participate in distributing their profits more widely, despite generative models being based on the works of other people, some of whose art was used for the training without permission.