• 0 Posts
  • 128 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024

help-circle

  • User was created earlier today as well. Two earlier updates from a non-account-holder may be from the same individual. Did a brief dig through the edit logs, but I’m not very practiced in Wikipedia auditing like this so I likely missed things. Their first couple changes were supposedly justified by trying to maintain a neutral POV. By far the larger one was a ā€œculling of excessive referencesā€ which includes removing basically all quotes from Cade Metz’ work on Scott S and trimming various others to exclude the bit that says ā€œthe AI thing is a bit weirdā€ or ā€œnow they mostly tell billionaires it’s okay to be richā€.



  • That hatchet job from Trace is continuing to have some legs, I see. Also a reread of it points out some unintentional comedy:

    This is the sort of coordination that requires no conspiracy, no backroom dealing—though, as in any group, I’m sure some discussions go on…

    Getting referenced in a thread on a different site talking about editing an article about themselves explicitly to make it sound more respectable and decent to be a member of their technofascist singularity cult diaspora. I’m sorry that your blogs aren’t considered reliable sources in their own right and that the ā€œheterodoxā€ thinkers and researchers you extend so much grace to are, in fact, cranks.



  • Finally circling back around to this.

    Feels like I am not just doing my job but also the work the operator of the service or product I am having to use through chat should have paid professionals to do. And I’m not getting paid for it.

    Speaking as someone who has worked extensively in IT support, I think that’s the sales pitch for these chatbots. They don’t want to give users tools and knowledge to solve their own problems - or rather they do but the chatbots aren’t part of that. The chatbots are supposed to replace the people who would interact with the relevant systems on your behalf. And honestly, working with a support person is already a deeply unsatisfying interaction in the vast majority of cases. In even the best case scenario it involves acknowledging that some part of your job has exceeded your ability and you need specialized help, and handling that well is a very rare personality trait. But the massive variety of interconnected systems that we rely on are too complex for this to not be a common occurrence. Even if you did radically open everything from internal bug trackers to licensing systems to communications there wouldn’t be enough time in the day for everyone to learn those systems well enough to perfectly self-solve all their problems, and that lack of systems knowledge would be a massive drain on your operations. But trying to fit in an LLM chatbot is the worst of both worlds, in that your users are both locked away from the tools and knowledge that would let them solve their own issues but still need to learn how to wrangle your intermediary system, and that system doesn’t have the human ability to connect and build a working relationship and get through those issues in a positive way.



  • I don’t know if I’d go that far. Like, his role as a spokesperson was to present the administration’s official position and not his personal beliefs. I can believe he did that work for a lot of reasons ranging from purely cynical to strategic to the simple economic ā€œI really need this jobā€ kind of thing. Obviously none of those factors are tied to whether or not he believes what he is saying is true, but I think those are distinct from the active disregard for truth unattached to any kind of specific role or position. Kevin isn’t working as an industry spokesman he’s allegedly a journalist who ostensibly gets paid to write the truth.











  • I do think Ed is overly critical of the impact that AI hype has had on the job market, not because the tools are actually good enough to replace people but because the business idiots who impact hiring believe they are. I think Brian Merchant had a piece not long ago talking about how mass layoffs may not be happening but there’s a definite slowdown in hiring, particularly for the kind of junior roles that we would expect to see impacted. I think this actually strengthens his overall argument, though, because the business idiots making those decisions are responding to the thoughtless coverage that so many journalists have given to the hype cycle just as so many of the people who lost it all on FTX believed their credulous coverage of crypto. If we’re going to have a dedicated professional/managerial class separate from the people who actually do things then the work of journalists like this becomes one of their only connectors to the real world just as its the only connection that people with real jobs have to the arcane details of finance or the deep magic that makes the tech we all rely on function. By abdicating their responsibility to actually inform people in favor of uncritically repeating the claims of people trying to sell them something they’re actively contributing to all of it and the harms are even farther-reaching than Ed writes here.