If a company made a car that could be driving itself generating revenue around the clock, they'd have to charge a pretty high price to justify selling it to you.
I know this sounds dystopian to some, but car ownership is a burden and I'm looking forward to a world where I can make an unoccupied car show up with my phone when I need it, and completely forget about it when I don't.
I'm no fan of AI in terms of its long term consequences, but being able to "just do things" with the aid of AI tools, diving head first into the most difficult programming projects, is going to improve the human programming skills worldwide to levels never before imaginable
>is going to improve the human programming skills worldwide to levels never before imaginable
"We found that using AI assistance led to a statistically significant decrease in mastery. On a quiz that covered concepts they’d used just a few minutes before, participants in the AI group scored 17% lower than those who coded by hand"
my comment is that it lowers the threshold to "just doing things"
An experiment where people "HAVE TO DO something" either way is testing something different
I know a fair amount about native android app development now because of using AI to build several native apps. I would know zero about about native android development if I had never attempted to build a native android app.
I have to stretch your analogy in weird ways to make it function within this discussion:
Imagine two people who have only sat in a chair their whole lives. Then, you have one of them learn how to drive a car, whereas the other one never leaves the chair.
The one who learned how to drive a car would then find it easier to learn how to run, compared to the person who had to continue sitting in the chair the whole time.
I've found AI handy as a sort of tutor sometimes, like "I want to do X in Y programming language, what are some tools / libraries I could use for that?" And it will give multiple suggestions, often along with examples, that are pretty close to what I need.
And they're all wrong. The real use was with a (now decayed-away) wooden ball inside them which, when shaken, displayed texts like "certum est" and "iterum postulo".
After they found the remains of the balloon from the first escape attempt, the Stasi put out a reward for information, I think everyone would take the story seriously at that point. It was why they decided they had to go through with the second attempt, because they were convinced the Stasi was going to catch them soon. But they had to buy the materials for that balloon after the Stasi had found the remains of their previous attempt.
> But they had to buy the materials for that balloon after the Stasi had found the remains of their previous attempt
The repressive state apparatus was moving too slow. Maybe they hoped there won't be a second attempt after the first one failed, maybe it wasn't promptly reported to the appartchikhs and handled internally by the Stasi to avoid backlash.
I would assume they did not tell them anything at all, until the time was there. And after the first failed attempt, they were probably shocked enough for real to understand the situation and keep their mouths shut.
Children put in serious situations are capable of much more serious behavior, than children who have only known comfort and safety.
slop is not, by definition, AI generated. The word slop is from the mid 16th century, and its modern colloquial/meme use originated in 4chan in 2016. That's why we call AI slop "AI slop", and not just "slop".
Hardly, asymptotic behavior can be anything, in fact that's the whole question: what happens to AI performance as we tend to infinity? Asymptoting to `y = x` is very different to levelling off.
Deep learning and transformers have given step functions in AI's capabilities. It may not happen, but it's reasonable to expect another step-function development soon.
Yeah, my rule when I got started was "If I ever lose a lifetime aggregated $3000 in the markets, then the markets are not for me". Then once you're ahead in the markets, it's fine to continue trading.
(Note: I ended up breaking my rule by continuing to trade after losing $5000, but then did great in the markets anyway in the long run LOL)
I made the mistake of gambling on 3x gas and oil futures once. Problem was, I got lucky a couple of times. They got all my money back and then some eventually. Gains based on luck can be toxic! Unless it's a well thought out statistical approach, maybe- but that would be a full time job.
also if the losses are in a non-IRA, they are (or were? talk to your cpa) tax deductible against other gains. But is it all worth even one lost night of sleep. Nah.... of course, there are ways of covering bets with options but that is professional level stuff.
