sheepolog

"technology and science become magical incantations dictated by a black-box oracle, whom everyone trusts and no one understands"

I don't see why this would be a terrible thing.

This is what humanity has done for thousands of years. We do things manually for a long time, then invent an efficient way to automate it, and the skills to do things manually are gradually lost.

A car is a magic black box that we trust to move us around. A smartphone is a magic black box that we trust to connect to the rest of the world. AI is just the latest invention in a long line of magic black boxes that we trust. If you'd prefer to live your life without a car or smartphone or AI, it is perfectly acceptable to do so, and there are communities of people who do that.

I think I'm detecting a concern that "if we don't understand how it works, it could start doing dangerous things". To that I would say: even if something is a magic black box, we can still improve it and make it safer. To invent an airbag, you don't need to understand how a car works.

I'm not sure why you say the analogy fails just because general AI has more applications than excavators. A tool is still a tool, regardless of how much human effort it replaces.

"Calculator" used to be a job title. Now it's a machine. In the same way, "construction worker" may one day be a machine. "Software engineer" may one day be a machine. "Engineer" in general may one day be a machine. This forum seems to think that if humans are not required to think hard about existing problem domains, something terrible will happen.

At the end of the AI revolution, thinking may become something like physical exercise -- something we do because it's fun, and keeps us healthy and attractive, not because it's required.

To be clear, I do think that AI poses a potential risk to humanity. But imo "we won't have to think as hard" is not a risk; it's a benefit.

100%. There's a spectrum of SEs in this thread. On one end of the sprectrum, programming is a means to an end. As long as they get the cool thing at the end, they don't care how they got it. On the other end of the spectrum, the programming is the reward. They're interested in making cool stuff, but the really fun part is in writing it themselves.

It's like someone who uses CNC to make cool wooden sculptures, vs someone who painstakingly crafts them by hand. The industry used to reward the workers who knew how to make stuff by hand. Now, someone's invented a CNC machine. The CNC workers are asking "what's the point of doing it slower?" and the hand craftspeople are asking "what's the point of doing something I don't enjoy?"

At the end of the day, there is room for both types of people in the industry. In an era of automated textiles, some people still make a living selling clothing knit by humans. But as the machines get better and better, those who make things by hand will become less valued and will have to compete with each other for the "artisan" label.

Thanks for replying! The ergonomics recommend not resting your forearms on the edge of the table, but as you say, everybody's anatomy is different; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

In case anyone else comes into this comment section looking for ideas: the thing that helped me the most was adding soft pads to my chair armrests - I found that resting my elbows on the hard surface of the default armrests resulted in forearm pain.

That's interesting! I'm curious to know: is there a bend in your wrist while typing (either with or without the wrist rest)? Also, are your arms parallel to the floor? Also also, do you rest your elbows on anything?

Opinions definitely do have a genetic component. Twin study meta-analysis suggests that 40-50% of your personality is inherited.

I agree that these days, the bulk of the drive to procreate comes from your culture/memetics.

For what it's worth, Switzerland's fertility rate (1.59 births per woman) is still well below the replacement rate, and has been for decades.

I think "make society more child-friendly" is a good idea, but one that doesn't seem to have increased fertility that much. To me it seems that educated people living comfortable lives with access to birth control simply don't want to have that many children. If you look at the country stats, the most proven way to increase fertility is to take away education, women's rights, or birth control. And imo, the western world should adapt to low birth rates, instead of trying to prop them up.

Thanks; can you share a link to these stats?

Not at all! I would guess that a sizable minority of "can't save money" people are in that position due to chronic illness or supporting others.

I have no idea what it costs to support a family member with a disability; probably varies wildly but I would guess it's about the same annual cost as raising a child? Except that annual cost never goes away.

I didn't downvote them, but I am genuinely curious to hear from people who "can't save money", and try to understand why that's the case. My assumption is that a large percent of them are spending way more than they need to, but that could easily be an incorrect stereotype.

So much life enjoyment is tied to feeling competent and respected. Seeing a new, more talented challenger on the horizon is bound to be discouraging to some extent. It's like going from high school to college all over again: you used to be the top of your class, now you're surrounded by people just as competent as you.

> What possible use could there be for doing this?

Umm...the same use we get out of an annual physical or dental checkup.

I agree with everything you just said.

I believe these are very difficult but not impossible problems. There are technical limitations to our measuring tools, but I am optimistic that future medical advancements (maybe far in the future) will provide ways of measuring and diagnosing that may seem like science fiction today.

I am not attempting to trivialize the work that medical professionals do, or fault doctors for being fallible. I am attempting to encourage the development of medical technology to cut down on what I perceive to be a high rate of misdiagnosis (10-15%).

Eventually, diagnostic systems (whether AI or human+AI) will significantly outperform current human doctors.

If humans have different normal ranges, then the tests will be specific to the individual, based on their health history, DNA, tissue simulation in digital environment, etc. If adrenal nodules of similar diameter behave differently, then the tests will inspect more than just diameter.

The data to make the correct diagnosis is out there, we just don't have the tools or processing power to use it yet.

All the more reason to have better diagnostic tools (not to mention faster imaging)! All humans are fallible; I hope one day diagnosis is the easiest part of a doctor's job.

It's been super eye-opening to me as an adult how frequent misdiagnoses are. I understand it's good for a doctor to sound confident, but "confidently wrong" is imo much worse than "cautiously wrong". We really need better imaging/diagnostic tools that cut down on human bias; hoping for a star trek tricorder someday.

I agree that things are getting better, but your sentiment feels a bit premature; exploitation is still alive and well in many supply chains. The people who manufacture the products you buy often live much harder lives than you.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-o...

Very cool. I was surprised that orangutans are described as being only 2 feet 9 inches tall, I think most are a bit larger. Maybe when sitting they're under 3 feet? From wikipedia:

"females typically stand 115 cm (45 in) tall and weigh around 37 kg (82 lb), while adult males stand 137 cm (54 in) tall and weigh 75 kg (165 lb). The tallest orangutan recorded was a 180 cm (71 in)."

As a Steam-based game developer, I am starting to use AI more and more in new projects for asset generation (images and text) as well as some help with code. Here are some of my ideas for why we haven't yet seen a huge increase in steam game releases due to AI:

1: Even with AI, it's a lot of work to make a full game. When most people think "I have a cool game idea", they're usually imagining something polished and non-trivial, possibly 3d. You could make a short text adventure in a few days with AI, or a very simplistic 2d game, but anything more ambitious (like 3d) is going to take a lot more effort.

2: Releasing on steam requires you to pay $100. I imagine this is a substantial deterrent for "3-day projects", unless you think it'll sell $100 worth.

3: There's more to game development than creating assets and writing code. The author of the article recreated an existing game, which sidesteps one of the most difficult parts of gamedev: design. Creating a compelling game is surprisingly difficult. Granted, you don't need a compelling game in order to release on steam, but I myself have made many prototypes over the years which I've abandoned because the idea just wasn't as interesting as I thought it would be.

4: I've made a few prototypes with AI assets, and one issue I frequently run into with image generation is: it still takes a fair amount of work to generate the same character in different poses, facial expressions, outfits, etc.

5: There is still considerable prejudice against using AI to make game assets. I think some people (myself included) are hesitant to release a game with lots of AI generated assets at the current moment, for fear of public backlash. Eventually that will calm down and it will become more socially acceptable to use AI to generate game assets.

I am bullish about AI improvement over the next decade, and I think we'll gradually see all of these issues resolve themselves as AI improves. But at the present moment, it's not quite as easy as the article makes it seem.

A more accurate analogy would be: you bought a physical DVD and DVD player, but now the film studio is preventing you from playing the DVD that you own on the hardware you own. In which case yes, we should regulate. Paying for access to a constantly changing library is not the same as paying to permanently own a single product.

What term would you prefer he use? "Offspring"? "Biological children"? I agree that he is in no way a father in the same sense as others who have actually helped raise children, but I also don't think he's claiming to be, and his phrasing makes sense to me. He is literally their father (in the most uninvolved way possible), and they are literally his children.

I was surprised at how closely your experience (and a commenter's experience) mirror my own. During my life, I've had a few periods of a few months where I focus intensely and work nonstop, and the work does not feel like effort at all. For me, it also comes with a sense of complete confidence, a feeling like I am fulfilling my purpose in life and that everything is exactly as it should be. It is the best sustained feeling I've ever experienced.

Unfortunately I've only experienced this three times in my life; typically around major life events (once when starting a new job in a new industry, once when quitting that job to make my own stuff, and once in grade school: the summer between 10th and 11th grade, for some reason). I look forward to seeing more research, and hopefully one day can apply these learnings to manually trigger this intense focus and motivation.

This is spot on. As a baby, you typically have two affectionate caretakers who dedicate a significant amount of their time to teaching you language/words, and also shower you with love/praise/attention for every little bit of incremental progress. Also, you're in an immersion program: you often can't communicate your wants/needs until you've learned the language, which adds another layer of incentive.

As an adult, if you were sent to an immersion program in a foreign country with two full-time foreign tutors/caretakers who loved you, like legitimately loved you with all their hearts, you would pick up that new language pretty darn quick.

The #1 thing that has helped me stick to habits over the long term is starting out as easy as I possibly can. I've been exercising consistently for years now, and what finally got me to stick with it was doing 1 pushup per day. That's it. I did one pushup per day for 5 days, then I moved to 2 per day, and started ramping up faster as time went on.

I've applied the same "make it as easy as humanly possible" to other habits (working on something for 5 minutes, for example) and it seems to work really well.

I believe the reason this works for me is because 1) it's laughably easy at the start, and I can knock it out in practically no time, and 2) I ramp up slowly enough that by the time it actually starts feeling difficult, I already have the habit established. The surest way for me to abandon a habit is by trying to do too much early on.

Another thing that is death to my habits is feeling guilt/shame about missing a day. If you miss a day, don't beat yourself up. It happens. Just remind yourself why you picked the habit, and try again. Maybe lower the difficulty a bit next time.

> or you find a trusted friend to advise you

I think there's an opportunity here for a review platform that only shows you reviews from individuals that you personally trust. "Find a trusted friend" but for the internet.

Do you think you'll ever move to a state with more sunlight?