Ah, they’ve decided who gets tossed under the bus.

I mean, more simply (and with less vitriol)

- AI has yet to be profitable for these large labs (also zero moat etc.)

- There is considerable hype and people are tired of it.

- HF incident (and apparently many others that these labs are not reporting on or don’t even know about) proves they have terrible security practices and that’s about it.

- NS is incredibly suspicious timing wise.

You are sprinting around these threads to misrepresent the average persons issues with AI. I don’t know why people having those issues seems to be taken as a personal attack for you.

3 responses, all from green accounts basically hurling the same vitriol at you.

Has someone gone and made 3 accounts to make it seem like their take is more popular?

Yes, and they’re being a bit too obvious about it.

You almost have hope for them from the total number until you realize the vast majority of that green is made up of NVIDIA

I don’t know if those companies are doing it for the right reasons but I’ve implemented a policy of showing me that you can do the job manually as well.

The reason being that if you can’t then you probably can’t tell when the AI is wrong.

My company is strictly Cybersecurity/IR though so that may vary with other specialties.

If the interview was specifically about doing it manually that’s one thing.

I called them schizophrenic because the companies I’ve interviewed with seem like they desperately want to be on the AI bandwagon and want you to demonstrate the ability to effectively use AI, but they don’t currently know how to evaluate that and panic and default back to their old heuristics.

It is very difficult in 45-50 minutes to complete a task when the criteria change partway through.

Oh yeah no that’s just a terrible interview process.

I think schizophrenic is a great way to describe that.

Never go full Philip J. Fry.

Literally all of these people write like this. A large portion of them will either be simultaneously or eventually working towards nothing but self-enrichment.

Every version of the AI aligned future where the AI provides “meaning and fulfillment” to humanity also involves Sam Altman wearing a 1.5 million dollar Patek and driving a McLaren.

Funny how that works.

Altman was very wealthy before OpenAI, and he declined to take any equity in OpenAI. How does that fit your theory?

Is the only wealth represented in money? If that was the case than the vast majority of these people could have wrapped it up and left the game years ago.

Power is the game.

This explains nothing. Money buys a lot of power, and he could have easily just had both.

Nah, money doesn’t buy ALL power.

Only power of a certain kind (read ownership of a system that many rely on) can’t be bought.

Again, this misses the point. Why did he turn down an equity stake that likely would have been worth hundreds of billions? It's not like it would have jeopardized the power you're talking about.

If anything that proves the point. The power wasn’t in the money (which he already had plenty of, as you say).

Look, in the future we may get to a point where LLMs are indistinguishable from humans in writing style.

Even then, I would say that using an LLM is robbing you of the process of writing, a process that is crucial to developing and understanding your own ideas.

Think about the last time you wrote something for consumption and the sentence to sentence thought processes you’re going through. I bet a lot of that was “is that right?” Or “does that make sense?” Or “am I communicating this at the level of my reader?”.

All of that is fundamental to your readers understanding, but more importantly, its fundamental to YOUR understanding.

"Writing is nature’s way of letting you know how sloppy your thinking is." -- Guindon

This premise seems pretty solid (and somewhat obvious) to me. The distinction between scaffolding and substitution can be applied to just about any skill so why not here?

This makes more sense at least than the “just another abstraction layer” argument that’s been thankfully dying out recently.

I run an IR company focused on specific security response emergencies.

AI use across my company is variable and I don’t allow any enforcement of mandatory using or not using of it.

I view and tell my employees to view their skills as that of a high-performing athlete. Consistent training of the basics, rapid fire what-if testing, weekly scenarios are all part of the upkeep.

In short, this is what it takes to keep up the skills no matter if you do or don’t use AI and I can imagine the degradation is much faster if you don’t train AND delegate all of your activity to AI.