I didn't mean to upset you, piratebroadcast. Like so many of us, you scratched a technological itch, and that is fine.
However, now that AI tools have supercharged us, these scratches are easier to scratch, and their outcomes, made public, flood the aether.
The aether is 99% garbage thanks to entrepreneurs big and small, so anyone scratching any kind of real itch and posting it online improves SNR, ever so slightly.
Specifically that these rabbit holes are useful to bring people to all sorts of new discoveries and skills.
It is important to point out that that's a real risk with such AI use.
Of course, it is also true that it would likely not have happened at all otherwise. Both things can be true at the same time.
__
Oh I just realized that you're the actual author and this is not the only super-thin-skinned comment.
Possibly, yeah, but the reactions here do not look like the learnings have been long-term-stable building blocks, tbh.
But anyway.
I am curious what else will show back up again when other people decide to hook up a clanker to one of the many piles of historic (and current) data we do not have the manpower to process for.
If you believed the things you said, you would have left out that last sentence.
"OP has a point" turned into "they are the same".
I didn't mean to upset you, piratebroadcast. Like so many of us, you scratched a technological itch, and that is fine. However, now that AI tools have supercharged us, these scratches are easier to scratch, and their outcomes, made public, flood the aether.
The aether is 99% garbage thanks to entrepreneurs big and small, so anyone scratching any kind of real itch and posting it online improves SNR, ever so slightly.
You're missing the actual point sorokod has.
Specifically that these rabbit holes are useful to bring people to all sorts of new discoveries and skills.
It is important to point out that that's a real risk with such AI use. Of course, it is also true that it would likely not have happened at all otherwise. Both things can be true at the same time.
__
Oh I just realized that you're the actual author and this is not the only super-thin-skinned comment.
Man. Why do be like this.
I think the author learned a lot in the process. It exactly served the purpose of diving down rabbit holes.
Possibly, yeah, but the reactions here do not look like the learnings have been long-term-stable building blocks, tbh.
But anyway.
I am curious what else will show back up again when other people decide to hook up a clanker to one of the many piles of historic (and current) data we do not have the manpower to process for.
1 reply →