Deeper reasoning, longer term planning, and more efficient solutions have always separated amateurs from experts. That experience cannot be applied asynchronously or reduced to supervision. It has to be "in the loop" and there is always a lot of out-of-band information that only an experienced eye would notice and can't be trained into a model.
These were all already very valid concerns long before this era of "AI" or computational power.
The broader public is just now barely beginning to understand because all they have to do is ask a chatbot. AI does not enable new capabilities, but it does aggregate an idea into a rough sketch and do it quickly on-demand.
None of this really means it will play out that way. The devil is in the details. What it does mean is much more nuanced attention on the politics and money because that's where the power always was.
No it doesn't. We already have all of that right now and have had it for decades.
The big investment into Project Stargate is all about managing risk. The government contractor and security clearance situation is out of control. As well, every human mistake is costly and time consuming to address. If you instead blame it on AI, you can skip the court proceedings and postmortems.
The other part of this is likely an attempt to surface information with summaries and shorten the chain of command. This is just a power grab and a dangerous dismissal of necessary implementation detail. It's a tantrum being thrown by ignorant people at the top being displaced. We live in an ever-complicated world that demands more experienced leadership than we have available. AI is their hail mary pass.
LLMs are being abused as a political battering ram. They are not the technological breakthrough advertised. The AI label is borderline absurd. AGI even moreso. NLP is an accessibility tool at best.
Of the people I know in tech roles, there are far more who have no online presence at all.
Personal pages were once an option in those people's minds (i.e. get around to it later). Then it got bargained down to social media profiles. Now anything at all has become a liability and the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
The internet is for everyone. That includes what you're not interested in.
It's pretty clear to me you all are just looking for closure. You do not want to live in the past. You can prove it to yourself by finding any old discussion archive and feeling the cringe. You do not want the values of the past either. You're chasing a feeling that is more related to your own aging than what various media like the internet "are".
Things would have changed anyway. You might just be upset that it wasn't on your terms. You can try to revive old ideas, but that veers into art. Art is very hard and requires a much deeper perspective than nostalgia. The perspective required to create what you want will also necessarily ruin what you expected to feel from it.
A relevant quote: "Everything was better back when everything was worse" - David Sipress, The New Yorker, Nov 24, 2003
Nah, disagree, things were actively better in a few ways. The big tech companies now purposely diffuse and obfuscate the value proposition to increase engagement and show more ads. There are some ways in which things have improved and that's mostly with standardization and pure accessibility, but the quality is extremely decreased.
For several of my interests I still participate in the modern version of what would previously have been dedicated websites powered by forums, but they are now on Facebook / reddit / discord and collections of YT videos. The quality of information is nowhere near what it was. The amount of spam, platform ads, and useless posts to drive engagement is easily over 50% of the content. There is no timely cohesive flow of posts or discussion. The benefits are far more members and consistent mobile access but they come with huge tradeoffs. Prioritizing mobile has many downsides and most of those users do not meaningfully contribute or even actively pollute the content.
It's not just nostalgia, the quality of content and sense of community was much better when people went into their own corners to discuss things vs everyone standing in the center and yelling over the background noise of a common ad-suoported platform.
Maybe I'm just naive, but why wouldn't a citizen do both?
I'm not implying that anything would get deliberately redacted, but it seems likely that information released through other channels would not match the web. A request might also reveal information that was not on the web.
reply