- elicksaurWhat context did I skip? It seems like the statement stands on its own.
- Each activity we engage in has different use, value, and subjective enjoyment to different people. Some people love knitting! Personally, I do know how to sew small tears, which is more than most people in the US these days.
Just because I utilize the services of others for some things does not mean that it should be expected I want to utilize the service of others for all things.
This is a preposterous generalization and exactly why I said the OP premise is laughable.
Further, you’ve shifted OP’s point from subjective enjoyment of an activity to getting “paid well” - this is an irrelevant tangent to whether “most” people in general would delegate work if they could.
- >most of us would delegate our work code to somebody else or something else if we could.
Laughably narrow-minded projection of your own perspective on others.
- Do you typically find reductio ad absurdum arguments to be persuasive?
- I think I’d call these examples “predictable” failures instead of “odd”.
- >OpenAI has also announced a social media project
I haven’t heard about this before this post, but if they’re starting a “Social Media but with AI” site in 2025, can’t help but feel like they’re cooked.
- This is interesting when you run it up the abstraction ladder.
What if we take this perspective from “knowledge of news topic of the day” and apply it to “knowledge of the virtue of commenting on a topic”. Are you qualified to actually speak on that subject? Am I? Maybe best not to say anything, since I’m not sure.
- The current link includes a link to this page which is a blog post announcement from today.
- None of my comments say I’m demanding perfection. That’s a fallacy to reduce my position to absurdism, so it can be easily dismissed.
LLMs have not improved my productivity. When I have tried to use them, they have been a net negative. There are many other people who report a similar experience.
- No one says, “Wikipedia knows everything.”
- I’m tired of “Well people get things wrong, too.” as a defense of these systems. They should stand or fall on their own merit.
And yes, reducing everything in the world - nothing matters. Everything is relative. What even is truth, amirite?
If that’s our slogan for the future then it is hella depressing.
- The AI is optimized for producing text that sounds like it makes sense and is helpful.
This is not a guarantee that the text it produces is a correct explanation of the thing you are asking about. It’s a mental trick like a psychic reading tea leaves.
- It’s like the people who say these things live on a different planet.
Or an alternate timeline where a different version of LLMs were invented.
- It literally knows nothing.
It is incapable of knowledge.
I’m bored of it.
- Gonna submit that business model to a YC 2026 batch.
- This doesn’t seem like a great way to reason about the predictions.
For something like this, saying “There is no evidence showing it” is a good enough refutation.
Counterpointing that “Well, there could be a lot of this going on, but it is in secret.” - that could be a justification for any kooky theory out there. Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts. Maybe AI has already replaced all of us and we’re Cylons. Something we couldn’t know.
The predictions are specific enough that they are falsifiable, so they should stand or fall based on the clear material evidence supporting or contradicting them.
- Note the market resolves by:
> Resolution will be via a poll of Manifold moderators. If they're split on the issue, with anywhere from 30% to 70% YES votes, it'll resolve to the proportion of YES votes.
So you should really read it as “Will >30% of Manifold moderators in 2027 think the ‘predictions seem to have been roughly correct up until that point’?”
- Why would “sales rep” be immune to the magical singularity AI that will be 9000 IQ points smarter than all of humanity combined?