It did help me make a basic script and add it to task scheduler so it runs and fixes my broken WiFi card so I don’t have to manually do it. (or better said, helped me avoid asking arrogant people that feel smug when I tell them I haven’t opened a command prompt in ten years)
I feel like I would have been able to do that easily 10 years ago, because search engines worked, and the 'web wasn’t full of garbage. I reckon I’d have near zero chance now.
I actually ended up switching to Kagi for this exact reason. Google is basically AI at the start usually spouting nonsense then sponsor posts and then a bunch of SEO optimized BS.
Thankfully paying for search circumvents the ads and it hasn’t been AI by default (it has it but it’s off) and the results have been generally closer to 2010s Google.
That is pretty cool, but it would have been possible, as someone else mentioned before AI ruined search, and there’s still an “unknown” element (unless you’ve checked it line by line and know what everything does and have confirmed that’s the best way to do it) that would not be there otherwise.
If the entirety of the AI hype was “a small script helper tool to get you started and tackle little things like startup scripts” I don’t think anyone would have such a problem with it.
The post is more about the ubiquity of the hype and the utter refusal to acknowledge the obvious limitations and risks.
OP wasn’t saying it’s never useful, I think you may have missed the forest for the trees.
- you
You have no evidence to back this claim. OP makes no claim AI is in any way useful at any time. Basically, it seems like you’re talking out of your ass. And also apparently too lazy to reread a comment chain? Or do you usually just grunt at people?
My evidence that OP wasn’t saying it’s never useful is that at no point in their post do they say it’s not useful. Are you interpreting me saying “OP wasn’t saying it’s never useful” to mean “OP said it’s sometimes useful”? Learn to read. (Sorry, I don’t normally like to be impolite, but you are being rude to me for no reason.)
OP lists many objections to AI. It is causing harm to society. It is a privacy convern. It is a concern for intellectual property reasons. It is an environmental concern. It’s making people stupid. Notice the absence of “it has no useful applications” or “it doesn’t work very well.”
Top Level Comment: “[I found a use for AI.]” My response: “[Although it sounds like you’re responding to what OP said, that doesn’t really contradict OP since they never claimed it has no uses. They are objecting to AI on different grounds entirely.]”
Considering the blanket negative post by OP, it’s weird to think that OP thinks there’s some utility. There’s no question of forests or trees, just you putting words in the mouth of the poster.
“Ah yes, AI has many very reasonable use cases and is often quite useful, but is also super evil. I will avoid it and make posts about avoiding it.” - you know, a forest of people
it’s weird to think that OP thinks there’s some utility. […] you putting words in the mouth of the poster.
I don’t get it. I literally just wrote an entire comment explaining how this was not my claim. Please, point me to where I said that OP thinks there is some utility to AI. Maybe go and re-read my comment in case you missed the whole comment while responding to it.
Let me try again. I also try not to be rude, but a one word “huh?” answer rubbed me the wrong way. Clean slate is fine by me.
Top Level Comment: “[I found a use for AI.]” My response: “[Although it sounds like you’re responding to what OP said, that doesn’t really contradict OP since they never claimed it has no uses. They are objecting to AI on different grounds entirely.]”
I take issue with this bit:
that doesn’t really contradict OP since they never claimed it has no uses.
Which is the source of your “forest for the trees” comment.
I don’t think that a reasonable person can, based on the reading of the OPs “AI is everywhere and evil” post, presume to say that the OP believed there are good uses for AI. I will probably edit this post for your particular wording. Since in voyager I can’t simultaneously reply and look at the comment chain.
Edit: having read the rant now several times, and in no way is it ever implied in any way that there’s anything good about AI. Sure, there’s no phrase that you said, or that OP says, that imply that it’s explicitly NOT useful. That, however, I would say is the “miss the forest for the trees” part. It strikes me as totally justifiable to say “I have found some uses for AI” in light of a blanket negative OP post. I don’t think the guy you initially replied to is missing anything.
It did help me make a basic script and add it to task scheduler so it runs and fixes my broken WiFi card so I don’t have to manually do it. (or better said, helped me avoid asking arrogant people that feel smug when I tell them I haven’t opened a command prompt in ten years)
I feel like I would have been able to do that easily 10 years ago, because search engines worked, and the 'web wasn’t full of garbage. I reckon I’d have near zero chance now.
I actually ended up switching to Kagi for this exact reason. Google is basically AI at the start usually spouting nonsense then sponsor posts and then a bunch of SEO optimized BS.
Thankfully paying for search circumvents the ads and it hasn’t been AI by default (it has it but it’s off) and the results have been generally closer to 2010s Google.
did you not read the damn post?
That is pretty cool, but it would have been possible, as someone else mentioned before AI ruined search, and there’s still an “unknown” element (unless you’ve checked it line by line and know what everything does and have confirmed that’s the best way to do it) that would not be there otherwise.
If the entirety of the AI hype was “a small script helper tool to get you started and tackle little things like startup scripts” I don’t think anyone would have such a problem with it.
The post is more about the ubiquity of the hype and the utter refusal to acknowledge the obvious limitations and risks.
Yeah it definitely has its uses. OP wasn’t saying it’s never useful, I think you may have missed the forest for the trees.
The whole premise is about avoiding it at all costs and that being difficult to do. Where in that ranty wall is a statement about the utility of AI?
huh?
- you
You have no evidence to back this claim. OP makes no claim AI is in any way useful at any time. Basically, it seems like you’re talking out of your ass. And also apparently too lazy to reread a comment chain? Or do you usually just grunt at people?
My evidence that OP wasn’t saying it’s never useful is that at no point in their post do they say it’s not useful. Are you interpreting me saying “OP wasn’t saying it’s never useful” to mean “OP said it’s sometimes useful”? Learn to read. (Sorry, I don’t normally like to be impolite, but you are being rude to me for no reason.)
OP lists many objections to AI. It is causing harm to society. It is a privacy convern. It is a concern for intellectual property reasons. It is an environmental concern. It’s making people stupid. Notice the absence of “it has no useful applications” or “it doesn’t work very well.”
Top Level Comment: “[I found a use for AI.]” My response: “[Although it sounds like you’re responding to what OP said, that doesn’t really contradict OP since they never claimed it has no uses. They are objecting to AI on different grounds entirely.]”
Considering the blanket negative post by OP, it’s weird to think that OP thinks there’s some utility. There’s no question of forests or trees, just you putting words in the mouth of the poster.
“Ah yes, AI has many very reasonable use cases and is often quite useful, but is also super evil. I will avoid it and make posts about avoiding it.” - you know, a forest of people
What?
I don’t get it. I literally just wrote an entire comment explaining how this was not my claim. Please, point me to where I said that OP thinks there is some utility to AI. Maybe go and re-read my comment in case you missed the whole comment while responding to it.
Let me try again. I also try not to be rude, but a one word “huh?” answer rubbed me the wrong way. Clean slate is fine by me.
I take issue with this bit:
Which is the source of your “forest for the trees” comment.
I don’t think that a reasonable person can, based on the reading of the OPs “AI is everywhere and evil” post, presume to say that the OP believed there are good uses for AI. I will probably edit this post for your particular wording. Since in voyager I can’t simultaneously reply and look at the comment chain.
Edit: having read the rant now several times, and in no way is it ever implied in any way that there’s anything good about AI. Sure, there’s no phrase that you said, or that OP says, that imply that it’s explicitly NOT useful. That, however, I would say is the “miss the forest for the trees” part. It strikes me as totally justifiable to say “I have found some uses for AI” in light of a blanket negative OP post. I don’t think the guy you initially replied to is missing anything.
Hopefully that fully articulates my position.
uhm no I’m pretty sure op wouldn’t approve judging by the:
I did not claim that the OP was saying it’s sometimes useful.