> If AI can diminish some of the monotony of research, perhaps we can spend more time thinking, writing, playing piano, and taking walks — with other people.
Whenever any progress is made, this is the logical conclusion. And yet, those who decide about how your time is being used, have an opposing view.
I feel that we’re reaching a limit to our context switching. Any further process improvements or optimizations will be bottlenecked on humans. And I don’t think AI will help here as jobs will account for that and we’ll have to do context switching on even broader and more complex scopes.
I think the limit has been exceeded. That's the primary reason everything sort of sucks now. There is no time to slow down and do things right (or better).
IMO, cyber security, for example, will have to become a government mandate with real penalties for non-compliance (like seat belts in cars were mandated) in order to force organizations to slow down, and make sure systems are built carefully and as correctly as possible to protect data.
This is in conflict with the hurtling pace of garbage in/garbage out AI generated stuff we see today.
Here in the EU cybersecurity is actually being regulated, with heavy fines to come (15 million euros or 2.5% of global turnover!), if it wasn't already. Look up the CRA and the NIS2.
Things may well reach a point elsewhere in the world finding out that some software is for sale in the European Union is itself a marker of quality, and therefore justifies some premium.
These are good developments, but it remains to be seen how much of impact they will have. Software developers will have to follow a bunch of “best practices”, but there isn’t a requirement that they are good at them. There are no fines for producing insecure software, only fines for not following the rules.
Software providers are also likely to be specifying narrow “fit for purpose” statements and short (ish) support window. If costs go up too much, people will be using “inappropriate” and/or EOL stuff because the “right thing” is too expensive.
To be clear, this is a step in the right direction but is not the panacea.
that, and instead of increases of productivity reducing people's need to work, what might (I think, will) happen is that we will actually have to work more for worse results and lower incomes, for the whims of the executive class and increased energy requirements for LLMs. compound this control over channels of communication (google, facebook, xitter), means of production (microsoft, amazon), with force of social-emotional manipulation of LLMs and we have a really "winner" technology.
I do not think the executive class is actually in on the power of AI to increase productivity, but rather to increase reliance.
Socrates allegedly was opposed to writing since he felt that it would make people lazy, reducing their ability to memorize things. If it wouldn't be for his disciple Plato who wrote down his words, none of his philosophy would have survived.
So I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but I also am not too pessimistic, either. We will adapt, and benefit through the adoption of AI, even though some things will probably be lost, too.
> Better “thinking” computers will breed worse thinking people, huh?
I actually think that will be the case. We're designing society for the technology, not the technology for the people in it. The human brain wasn't built to fit whatever gap is left by AI, regardless of how many words the technologists spew to claim otherwise.
For instance: AI already is undermining education by enabling mental laziness students (why learn the material when ChatGPT can do your homework for you). It seems the current argument is that AI will replace entry-level roles but leave space for experienced and skilled people (but block the path to get there). Some of the things LLMs do a mediocre but often acceptable job at are the things one needs to do to build and hone higher-level skills.
> Whenever any progress is made, this is the logical conclusion. And yet, those who decide about how your time is being used, have an opposing view.
Exactly. Some people forget we live in a capitalist society, which does not prioritize or support the contentment of the masses. We exist to work for the owners or starve, they're not going to pay us to enjoy ourselves.
> shut the fuck up Marx, everyone is tired of you.
That's objectively false, but I understand. I too went through an obnoxious libertarian phase.
> nobody is forcing you to work for "the man," man.
You actually think that's true? Sure, no identifiable person is pointing a gun at our heads and shouting "work," but that's not the only form "forcing" can take.
If there is 1 job at a university. And there are 10 researchers applying. And 1 took this improvement in research speed to do more research, and 9 took the change to play more piano and take more walks, then most likely that one will get the job. This competitive nature is what has driven society forward and not kept us at just above subsistence agriculture.
I mean with our population increase in the last 100 years these numbers are showing a massive decrease in poverty with sub Saharan Africa holding the highest remaining areas of poverty.
Not really. It's a very recent fad to treat "research" as some kind of mechanical factory process that need simply optimize units research per unit time.
When you sit down to think about it, what does it really even mean to do "more research"? What concrete phenomenon are you observing to decide what that is?
Across the journey from "subsistence agriculture", there have been countless approaches to nurturing innovation and discovery, but abstracting it into an abstract game measured by papers published and citations received is extremely novel and so far seems to correlate more with a waste and noise than it does discovery. Science and research is not in a healthy period these days, and the model that you describe, and seem to take for granted or may even be celebrating, plays a big role in why.
Eh the more problem space you explore the more energy is required to explore it. Looking at the last 300 years and saying 'look at all the low hanging fruit we picked' doesnt describe where we are now.
We started offshoring manufacturing and growing the service economy?
Now the service economy is turning into the sharing economy, I think the only thing we are sharing is the greater profits and they are taking the lions share.
Whenever any progress is made, this is the logical conclusion. And yet, those who decide about how your time is being used, have an opposing view.