@ShadowJonathan
It appears to be said by author Joanna Maciejewska.
Edit ty to @kjv
@AuthorJMac
I personally think we should let AI also do at least some of the thinking work too . Like humans are the philosophers and AI serves to enhance our passive intelligence.
Our human brains struggling with doing basic calculus we need an higher form of assistance to help our find solutions in the more advanced fields of physics and science.
@aditya14 @ShadowJonathan former philosophy major here and also someone who has recently been observing what ordinary people think they are "accomplishing" in "physics" with "AI":
no.
trust me on this.
no.
@aditya14 @ShadowJonathan oh I see
(I think AGI/ASI is pure science fiction, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one)
"Our brains are struggling with basic calculus"
No.
"we need an higher form of assistance to help our find solutions in the more advanced fields of physics and science."
Again, no.
Imma be honest mate. It takes me roughly 5 minutes to solve a non-subtitution integral. ๐
Large language models are not "AI" in the sense that I think you're implying, and don't do any thinking.
@resuna @ShadowJonathan
I agree currently they are not but we are still in a development phrase.
We are currently in the ANI phrase. I am talking about the AGI or ASI phrase.
They are not even potentially "AI" in that sense. They are not "narrow" AI, they are not systems that perform reasoning at all. They are a complete dead-end that has sucked all the oxygen out of the room.
We don't know how to build "ANI" yet. Worse, it's not even seriously being worked on.
Brand new account... hmmmmm.
feeling the need to comment on the supposed benefits of letting AI "think" for people..
Newsflash: AI doesn't think, it generates plausible sounding words.
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
@ShadowJonathan @briankrebs
I think that IBM and Jim Henson said it earlier.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_IZw2CoYztk
As interpreted by B(if)tek.

@ShadowJonathan Totally agree, of course. But it always makes me consider why this is the way things have gone.
And it is because making art and writing is easy. Sorry - bear with me a moment. Making GOOD art and writing is really really difficult. But then it doesn't do that. I churns out the usual mass-market crap.
Some of it is the fault of us, the consumers, for buying this crap, and wanting more of it. And not being more discerning and insisting on quality.
But we buy crappy chart music, crappy Dan Brown and E L James novels and crappy Kincade pictures.
The new Behind the Bastards podcast on "AI" as an historical bastard is ๐๐๐
They mention that they go after art & writing because they're the 2 most common things people share on the internet, and thus the best for convincing regular people that it's "doing something"...
Very interesting analysis of the hype & marketing of shatbots [sic], worth the listen!