Dig deeper into this. When are calculators allowed, and when are they not? If it is kids learning to do basic operations, do we really allow them to use calculators? I doubt it, and I suspect that places that do end up with students who struggle with more advanced math because they off loaded the thinking already.

On the other hand, giving a calculus student a 4 function calculator is pretty standard, because the type of math they can do isn't what is being tested, and having a student be able to plug 12 into x^3 - 4x^2 + 12 very quickly instead of having to work it out doesn't impact their learning. On the other hand, more advanced calculator are often not allowed when they trivialize the content.

LLMs are much more powerful than a calculator, so finding where in education it doesn't trivialize the learning process is pretty difficult. Maybe at grad level or research, but anything grade school it is as bad as letting a kid learning their times tables use a calculator.

Now, if we could create custom LLMs that are targeted at certain learning levels? That would be pretty nice. A lot more work. Imagine a Chemistry LLM that can answer questions, but know the homework well enough to avoid solving problems for students. Instead, it can tell them what chapter of their textbook to go read, or it can help them when they are having a deep dive beyond the level of material and give them answers to the sorts of problems they aren't expected to solve. The difficulty is that current LLMs aren't this selective and are instead too helpful, immediately answering all problems (even the ones they can't).

Yes, this is a good thing. Where it becomes bad is when someone says "Oh, we should stop that from happening, let's ban the sell of such tires." With no exception.

This isn't a problem unique to regulations and laws. In software development, it is very common for the user to not think about exceptions. The rare the exception, the more likely it is missed in the requirements. It is the same fundamental problem of not thinking about all the exception cases, just in different contexts. You also see this commonly in children learning math. They'll learn and blindly apply a rule, not remembering the exceptions they were told they need to handle (can't divide by zero being a very common one).

So far all I've tried are willing to return a random phrase or grammar used in a song, so it is only getting to asking for a line of lyrics or more that it becomes troublesome.

(There is also the problem that the LLMs who do comply will often make up the song unless they have some form of web search and you explicitly tell them to verify the song using it.)

I know no one wants to hear this from the cursed IP attorney, but this would be enough to show in court that the song lyrics were used in the training set. So depending on the jurisdiction you're being sued in, there's some liability there. This is usually solved by the model labs getting some kind of licensing agreements in place first and then throwing all that in the training set. Alternatively, they could also set up some kind of RAG workflow where the search goes out and finds the lyrics. But they would have to both know that the found lyrics where genuine, and ensure that they don't save any of that chat for training. At scale, neither of those are trivial problems to solve.

Now, how many labs have those agreements in place? Not really sure? But issues such as these are probably why you get silliness like DeepMind models not being licensed for use in the EU for instance.

As for searching for the lyrics, I often have to give it the title and the artist to find the song, and sometimes even have to give context of where the song is from, otherwise it'll either find a more popular English song with a similar title or still hallucinate. Luckily I know enough of the language to identify when the song is fully wrong.

No clue how well it would work with popular English songs as I've never tried those.

We have many expectations in society which often aren't formalized into a stated commitment. Is it really unreasonable to have some commitment towards society to these less formally stated expectations? And is expecting communication presented as being human to human to actually be from a human unreasonable for such an expectation? I think not.

If you were to find out that the people replying to you were actually bots designed to keep you busy and engaged, feeling a bit betrayed by that seems entirely expected. Even though at no point did those people commit to you that they weren't bots.

Letting someone know they are engaging with a bot seems like basic respect, and I think society benefits from having such a level of basic respect for each other.

It is a bit like the spouse who says "well I never made a specific commitment that I would be the one picking the gift". I wouldn't like a society where the only commitments are those we formally agree to.

They seem world's apart to me!

Especially if we consider the summation of these commitments. One is obviously much larger, but it defines just one of our relationships within society. The other defines the majority of our interactions within society at large, so a change to it, while much less impactful to any one single interaction or relationship (I use them interchangeably here as often the relationship is just that one single interaction) is magnified by how much more often it occurs. This does move towards making the costs of losing some trust in such a small interaction as having a much larger cost than it first appears, which I think further increases how one can compare them.

(More generally, I also like comparing things even when the scale doesn't match, as long as the comparison really applies. Like apples and oranges, both are fruits you can make juice or jam with.)

And sometimes of course even that doesn't work but there has always been and always will be the clued, clue-resistant, and the clue-proof. Can't do anything about the clue-proof but at least presenting the arguments allows everyone else to consider them.

This fixation on the reverence due a spouse is completely stupid and beside the point of the concept being expressed. As though you think there is some arbitrary rule about spouses that is the essense of the problem? The gift-for-spouse is an intentionally hyberbolic example of a concept that also exists and applies the same at non-hyperbolic levels.

The point of a clearer example is you recognize "oh yeah, that would be wrong" and so then the next step is to ask what makes it wrong? And why doesn't that apply the same back in the original context?

You apparently would say "because it's not my wife", but there is nothing magically different about needing to respect your spouses time vs anyone else's. It's not like there is some arbitrary rule that says you can't lie to a spouse simply because they are a spouse and those are the rules about spouses. You don't lie to a spouse because it's intrinsically wrong to lie at all to anyone. It's merely extra wrong to to do anything wrong to someone you supposedly claim to extra-care about. Lying was already wrong all by itself for reasons that don't have anything special to do with spouses.

This idea that it's fine to lie to and waste the time of everyone else, commandeer and harness their attention of an interaction with you, while you just let a robot do your part and you are off doing something more interesting with your own time and attention, to everyone else who isn't your spouse simply because you don't know them personally and have no reason to care about them is really pretty damning. The more you try to make this argument that you seem to think is so rational, the more empty inside you declare yourself to be.

I really can not understand how anyone can try to float the argument "What's so bad about being tricked if you can't tell you were tricked?" There are several words for the different facets of what's so wrong, such as "manipulation". All I can say is, I guess you'll just have to take it on faith that humans overwhemingly consider manipulation to be a bad thing. Read up on it. It's not just some strange idea I have.

I see that, in the hyperbolic case, you are actively tricking your wife. I just don't agree that you are actively tricking randomly public visitors of a blog in any real way? there is no agreement in place such that you can "trick" them. Presumably you made commitments in your marriage. No commitments were made to the public when a blog got posted.

It's equally baffling to me that you would use one case to make the point of the other. It doesn't make any fucking sense.

I thought we were talking about BUYING THE SECRETARY A GIFT. E.g. breaking his commitment to his wife through some implied/emotional cheating?

Having the secretary buy the gift? My god who cares. I have no argument against that at all.

Sorry I feel like I should delete all my comments but.. such is the internet.

Probably the most impactful "easy A" class I had in college.

I was on my highschool's radio station, part of the broadcast media curriculum. It was awesome.

That early experience erased any esteem I had for mass media. (Much as I loved the actual work.)

We got to visit local stations, job shadow, produce content for public access cable, make commercials, etc. Meet and interview adults.

We also talked with former students, who managed to break into the industry.

Since it was a voc tech program, there was no mention of McLuhan, Chomsky, Postman, or any media criticism of any kind.

I learned that stuff much later. Yet somehow I was able to intuit the rotten core of our media hellscape.

If you were to pass your writing it and have it provide a criticism for you, pointing out places you should consider changes, and even providing some examples of those changes that you can selectively choose to include when they keep the intended tone and implications, then I don't see the issue.

When you have it rewrite the entire writing and you past that for someone else to use, then it becomes an issue. Potentially, as I think the context matter. The more a writing is meant to be from you, the more of an issue I see. Having an AI write or rewrite a birthday greeting or get well wishes seems worse than having it write up your weekly TPS report. As a simple metric, I judge based on how bad I would feel if what I'm writing was being summarized by another AI or automatically fed into a similar system.

In a text post like this, where I expect others are reading my own words, I wouldn't use an AI to rewrite what I'm posting.

As you say, it is in how the tool is used. Is it used to assist your thoughts and improve your thinking, or to replace them? That isn't really a binary classification, but more a continuum, and the more it gets to the negative half, the more you will see others taking issue with it.

Our best technology at current require teams of people to operate and entire legions to maintain. This leads to a sort of balance, one single person can never go too far down any path on their own unless they convince others to join/follow them. That doesn't make this a perfect guard, we've seen it go horribly wrong in the past, but, at least in theory, this provides a dampening factor. It requires a relatively large group to go far along any path, towards good or evil.

AI reduces this. How greatly it reduces this, if it reduces it to only a handful, to a single person, or even to 0 people (putting itself in charge), seems to not change the danger of this reduction.

If AI somehow allowed me to create videos of the likeness of Isaac Newton or George Washington, that seems far less a concern because they are long dead and none of their grieving family is being hurt by the fakes.

Violence is problematic for self evident reasons. Cooperation I already touched on about the community involvement, with all the same problems.

It isn't that we can't imagine a world without money, but that we quickly see the problems with it given the scale of modern day life.

As for post scarcity, it really depends upon what is post scarcity. Money becomes meaningless for things that are not scarce, but some things remain scarce.

I did this, found two things I did for fun, both consuming significant blocks of time. The one that felt useless left not real impact. I want to do more of it, but after spending hours on it, I'm no different than I was before (other than perhaps a bit more skilled at the form of entertainment).

The other form, which was the same thing from an outside perspective (for example, my parents would see them as the same) left me different. It led to me building new goals, reevaluating things happening around me, spend more time thinking about where I'll be in 10/20 years. It led to me walking an hour a day and to start jogging some to build my endurance, despite the form of entertainment being unrelated to physical activity. I don't think this is innately a property of one entertainment form over another, but more about my personal relationship to entertainment.

Using this, how do 'poorly regarded' entertainment impact those engaging in it, compared to 'well regarded' entertainment? Are their lives better for it?