There are the seeds of something savvy here, but I'd liked to have seen an example or two to embellish the call to "scrutinize what lies beneath". I understand the article to suggest that it would be prudent to direct action and discourse more effectively, based more in a grounded understanding, less in mirages of showmanship. But that's my predisposition, and I feel there's a vagueness here that has resulted in your article serving more as a mirror than a cogency.
Accelerationists will get excited by the bicycle metaphor and raise you a self-deiving car, seeing a narrative where AI is finally fulfilling the implications of the mechanical turk - clearly no puppeteer behind GPT. Skeptics will appreciate your agreement that AI is crap sham, nothing to worry about. Techno-optimists will add this to their list of historical repetitions, just like Edison's anti-DC demonstrations and the moral panic over bicycles, yet more evidence that any and all concern is an annoying and misguided distraction.
In particular: "well-meaning regulations around these systems (such as the AI executive order), miss the mark entirely because they get too caught up in the glimmering aesthetics to look into the ugly details."
What's ugly about the details? What would hit-the-mark regulations have looked like?
You suggest that we can do better in responding to what we're seeing, but instead of showing how, subvert the nuance you built up with an ending that invites the reader to confirm their bias
And then Amazon created a service called "Amazon Mechanical Turk" where you could pay people to perform simple repetitive tasks...
...and then those people found a way to use AI to pretend to be a Mechanical Turk (https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/14/mechanical-turk-workers-are-using-ai-to-automate-being-human/)
The plot of Inception has nothing on the real world.
Yes! Given a longer piece, we would have brought this full circle.
Brilliant! Loved it 👏👏👏👏
Thanks, Nat! That's great to hear coming from you.
There are the seeds of something savvy here, but I'd liked to have seen an example or two to embellish the call to "scrutinize what lies beneath". I understand the article to suggest that it would be prudent to direct action and discourse more effectively, based more in a grounded understanding, less in mirages of showmanship. But that's my predisposition, and I feel there's a vagueness here that has resulted in your article serving more as a mirror than a cogency.
Accelerationists will get excited by the bicycle metaphor and raise you a self-deiving car, seeing a narrative where AI is finally fulfilling the implications of the mechanical turk - clearly no puppeteer behind GPT. Skeptics will appreciate your agreement that AI is crap sham, nothing to worry about. Techno-optimists will add this to their list of historical repetitions, just like Edison's anti-DC demonstrations and the moral panic over bicycles, yet more evidence that any and all concern is an annoying and misguided distraction.
In particular: "well-meaning regulations around these systems (such as the AI executive order), miss the mark entirely because they get too caught up in the glimmering aesthetics to look into the ugly details."
What's ugly about the details? What would hit-the-mark regulations have looked like?
You suggest that we can do better in responding to what we're seeing, but instead of showing how, subvert the nuance you built up with an ending that invites the reader to confirm their bias
A con that ran 84 years- it was a real long con.
SBF and Madoff, eat your hearts out!