> why dismiss the experiences of people suffering first hand from those tools?
Because if you’re paying voluntarily for a tool that you don’t need, you have agency to remove your “suffering” by canceling your subscription and not use it! So the “suffer” complaint in those instances can be dismissed.
That's like saying you just have to stop being a wage slave for a corporation and suddenly you're free.. but you still have to pay the bills. That's a fallacious argument.
All people i know around me who use LLMs and have subscriptions are forced upon them by their employers. But even for "willing" users, questions of addiction come into play.
Nobody lives on their own planet. There are countless systems that we all depend on that suck by design. No one would say you're not allowed to criticize American health insurance or social media just because you're forced to participate in them if you don't wanna go down like Ted Kaczynski.
This is such a moving goalpost anyways. If someone is a prominent AI critic and doesn't regularly use the tools, that becomes the main line of attack. But the second they get a subscription ALL their criticism is cancelled a priori.
I don't know that saying "this work is hard" is enlightening.
More useful would be to be able to explain at some high level what the the inherent and accidental complexity is, the tradeoffs to navigate, long-term vs short-term decisions, etc.
Saying "it is hard" makes the audience think you're less of an expert in your domain and they are then inclined to find someone who doesn't say "this work is hard".
> Our goal isn’t to tell students what to build - it’s to inspire them to set audacious goals and exercise extreme ownership and agency over the outcome.
Ambition, responsibility, agency.
Who wouldn’t want to develop those skills. I wonder how much of is it innate (eg could be latent but needs sparking) vs can be taught.
This is cool. Are you considering doing a real world experiment? Obviously not with a real car, but maybe something like a small object that the fly neurons can steer through a maze or something?
You could use a real car too! (As long as low speed / open lot), I just did an experiment like this last weekend, a similar stack (build off of Openpilot/Comma 4) could work with the fly model, will email you some details if you're curious
True RC car is definitely the next logical step :) Yeah as long as you set a low enough speed limit, do it in an empty parking lot, have a human always ready to brake, I think it should be relatively safe haha
I was thinking exactly this! Either an RC car, or more interestingly, a drone. I’ve only tested it on simpler obstacles and environments so far, but who knows what more it can do?
Yes, which is why people study marketing to understand revealed preferences in society. Here, they slimmed down the woman on the left. It's well known that skinnier is more marketable. By the same token, we must assume that they think replacing the hispanic man with a black woman is also an upgrade. By contrast, in China, they sometimes do the opposite: https://variety.com/2015/film/news/star-wars-china-poster-co....
But for the dining hall presummably you dont just want skinny people, because that probably just means lame salads and stuff. Its like if the chef is too skinny, i suspect that.
If i were to do the dining hall ads I'd make everybody super fat. Look how delicious our food is!
Hey buddy, not everything is about cold calculation. Some of us value culture and integrity. These are going to matter even more in the age of AI not less.
Isn’t it obvious? Integrity is about honesty. They showed a picture claiming the school is one way, but the picture was a fabrication. It’d be the same if they were staging food in the cafeteria for marketing, but that food isn’t available to students.
You can make what you have look as good as it can, and I’m sure everyone does that.
But AI fabrications are crossing the line to outright lies, which is by definition violating integrity.
It's considered unethical for food marketers to use marketing photos that aren't of the actual product. Sure, it's a perfect example staged under perfect lighting with perfect presentation but when you see a Dorito on the bag it's a real Dorito.
Why are photos of people any different? There needs to be some grounding of the presentation to what you're actually selling.
(It's also illegal for food, but that's beside the point, you shouldn't get your moral compass from the law)
You cannot use stand ins for the product being sold. You can photograph your cereal in glue because milk makes cereal soggy or you can drizzle your chocolate syrup over mashed potatoes because ice cream will melt but neither of those examples would be legal if you were selling the milk or the ice cream. There's some gray area at the margin but this is how the law has been interpreted and what has been enforced for decades.
Using an LLM to write something persuasive is a good way to persuade me that you don't care about the topic personally, and therefore I probably shouldn't care what you or your LLM think.
Because if you’re paying voluntarily for a tool that you don’t need, you have agency to remove your “suffering” by canceling your subscription and not use it! So the “suffer” complaint in those instances can be dismissed.
reply