maybe a wise use of technology?: never adopt a higher complexity tech when a lower one fit well.
And white boards are less clear (to me) and markers dry (often in the worst moment).
And about slides... very easy for prof, but i cannot copy a slide, always follow the reasoning, so having the things written is best, writing indeed is another side of thinking.
About efficiency (energetic), correctness and safety (logical), seems way long from a forward step (by now).
[Lemma (: from Murphy's Laws of Computer Programming, wisdom from a more civilized era: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.]
only if you have a real (sane, sustainable, efficient) economy to give the money some value. without a real economy money is a number in a computer/a piece of paper, and growing is constrained by the finite resources of the world
Economy is way too much growth, as inequality and inefficiency, pollution, and resource exaustion, being mainly based on finance and speculation and not on -real- economy, for the good of a very small part of humanity. Has to grow in this manner even more? And with the help of AI?
If some rules are not changed and a more equality model is developed, there are no more world at all.
What's your problem with growth? Growth means higher GDP which is correlated with all sorts of good things, including longer lives, and less food scarcity.
i like "all sort of good things" (and more if are really available for -all-) but IMHO relating these to an aeternal even bigger growth is a big misconception, seems to me that now the bigger part of growth is going to benefits very few, and polluting/undermining the rest of the world, vanishing the "good thing" for the rest of us.
I imagine growth more as a consequence of a really sane economy, capable to adapt, expand and even shrink when necessary without devastating markets and real GDP, i cannot think now 'growth' as the foundation of a real sustainable and development in the near future.
Is like 'progress', a word mainly referring to speed and more speed, but never about 'direction'.
Returning to AI, really can these new techs benefits all of us? I doubt. In some sectors AI techs can be a great aid (expert systems, data mining, ) but this growth of LLM things seems a big bubble, more related to speculation than others. just my 5c.
Most GDP growth is just a change in price level - even inflation-adjusted GDP, since prices consistently rise faster than inflation. How does this help anyone?
Human brain/mind has evolved during million of years, adapting to real physical environments, resolving big problems, quite all not related to language at all, having complex language and abstract thinking emerge along the whole process.
Try to capture the end results of human evolution/thinking in some kind of machine, and imagine this will grasp/reproduce the deep nature of the human creative process seems quite superficial plan (if not totally wrong), LLM come not from an evolution process, there is no true deep evolutive structure.
For (some) humans the path to a goal is sometimes way more important than reaching the goal itself, and having a response to a problem ready from a LLM probably, convenience apart, is losing a key part of being human, eg resolving problems, creating tools, adapting to challenges.
Probably every intelligence has its limits, as every systems (eg. mathematics, remembering goedel) has his own. This kind of AGI seems like a deity, hard to belive it's possible, but in pratice many kind of "smaller" intelligences exist (from ants to primates) less "general" but enough to solve enough problems to live and evolve, and maybe can be even created by others intelligences.
IMHO It's reasonable to think a real intelligence as a property of complex evolving systems interacting with a complex environment, so to live in a complex world a not-so-general intelligence can be enough, even given some limits and errors.
