Comment by MinimalAction
5 days ago
> For one, I can't even understand this part:
Let me explain. My belief was that research as a task is non-trivial and would have been relatively out of reach for AI. Given the advances, that doesn't seem to be true.
> And then there's the opinion that for some reason we should 'value' manual labor over using AI, which seems rather disagreeable.
Could you explain why? I'm specifically talking about research. Of course, I would value what a veteran in the field says higher than a probability machine.
They way it was stated it appeared to me like "we should do research the heavy way even if the machine gives us the right answer", or that we should value research only if it was accomplished manually.
I guess there are many ways to interpret the comment, with a lot of potential for disagreement.
My whole point was that we can't be sure the machine gives you right answer especially in research where much of it is uncharted territories.
There aren't many ways to interpret and I clarified what I meant. Thanks for participating, these comments are insufferable.