Yes, but no room is made for people who see no use for it. There is a forced-consensus that this technology is useful, which I have to combat against at work.
We teach in a very different environment, but your use sounds typical of my colleagues. "I ask it for suggestions and pick one", but nobody seems to wonder about what is lost when we shrink the horizon of what we will teach to the most likely outputs from a chatbot, one of which we will use.
Maybe this makes more sense in other fields. I have to prepare people to work in the shipping industry, in extremely dangerous roles where they will be operating heavy machinery, steering ships, driving cranes etc. The fact is that AI knows next to nothing about this field because an AI cannot experience handling a ship in rough weather, has never secured a boat to a ship's side with the rain and wind in its face.
Yet, when people are brought in to instruct our trainees, they are told to "tell AI what you want and pick one of the suggestions", in the best case, or just give over everything to the AI in the worst case. And nobody seems to be able to explain why this is a better way of working than sitting with a pen and paper, brainstorming some ideas for a lesson based on your real experiences, and then delivering it. The only justification I'm ever given is your one, "I pick from a list so I am really still in control", "it's quicker and I don't have to think as hard or as long", "it's better at making slides or writing good-sounding (to management and auditors) lesson plans". No-one ever seems to justify it by saying it is genuinely a better experience for the trainees.
> Yes, but no room is made for people who see no use for it. There is a forced-consensus that this technology is useful, which I have to combat against at work.
This is the crux of the issue -- The technology is useful. Using it appropriately is probably the thing that people are ignoring, but you're conflating one and the other in your comment.
It is not useful to you in this case, and complain that it is an overall detriment in your industry. Those are fine and reasonable statements and conditions, and I see no reason to disagree with them... But your first statement, people who see no use for it? That is, to me, as off-putting an opinion as the consequence-unaware hypebeasts who are running OpenClaw with access to their trading accounts and can't see why others aren't.
I sympathise with the idea that everyone wants to use the new hammer and so is treating every problem like a nail, but hammers are still pretty good tools. (And you can ignore the ex-NFT-fans hammering on their dicks in the corner.)
I mean only that I see no use for it myself, in my own work. I'm sure there are people working in roles around me who believe they get some use out of AI doing their work for them, and they will have to answer to auditors when they find problems with their work, or when someone is killed.
To me, as a non-techie person, it feels as if people who work in software believe that because their work can be done by AI, everyone else's can, too. Or that this would be better, simply because it proposes a technological solution to human work — it is taken as read that a solution which uses cool sounding computers and data farms is better than one done by humans with a pen and a pad and life experience. They don't have to justify this belief, because the money is on their side.
I don't mean to tar you with a too-wide brush, and I feel like you have a good handle on your personal acceptance for LLM assistance. No complaint there.
I do think, maybe alternative to your view, that LLMs can provide useful feedback to graduate-level employees in most fields.
It is not that the work can be done by LLMs -- we're not there, yet, in software or otherwise -- but that LLMs as useful tutors specifically in regard to denouncing known bad ideas is largely applicable all over.
What I mean by the above is that I have yet to find a truly interesting idea spun from whole cloth by an LLM. They're mediocre at it. They're trained from the aggregate thoughts of those in every industry, and you and I both know that the aggregate of the industry is, generally, mediocre.
Conversely, though, is the hit: They won't be worse than mediocre. An indefatigable tutor who gives no great advice but will counsel you against blowing yourself up (or cutting a limb off with a rope, or falling overboard) is, to me, worth an amount.
The failure modes will get better, the advice will get better. Are we there, now? Unsure. You can tell us all better.
What does that really mean though — ten more years of data centers exploiting local communities for their resources will mean that a computer might be able to teach people to tie knots, and reliably check their work... No government would allow that to certify someone, and no company would risk the lawsuit when someone dies doing what the AI tells them, so it's a non-starter. Even if it were possible, and governments got on board with certifying training like that, would anyone think this was better than what we have now?
What are the likely use cases in my industry then? That AI is used to bodge the important paperwork that protects lives; is used to draft legislation; is used by both employees and management to do things like personal development reports.
Is anyone meant to be impressed? Is this worth communities having their water stolen from them?
I appreciate I am skeptical, but it is hard not to be when the world spends all day telling you a piece of technology is going to fundamentally change the world, and in real life you only see people use it to blag CVs, personal reports, and lesson planning.
> "What does that really mean though — ten more years of data centers exploiting local communities for their resources"
That is purest hyperbole. Data centers use a lot of electricity, but they are hardly looting local communities. The water issue is wildly exaggerated, unless a data center is located in a desert, because most water is recirculated.
And why do you think no one will allow an AI to certify someone on certain topics. Their knowledge at the moment is roughly the average of people in the field. Is an average person in your field not able to certify others? In any case, AIs are improving very rapidly, so what is not possible today will be possible tomorrow.
As an example, let me point out the Tesla FSD. On a per-mile basis, self-driving Teslas have a massively lower accident rate (less than 20%) than human-driven vehicles. That is a very physical activity being handled by an AI.
Yes, but no room is made for people who see no use for it. There is a forced-consensus that this technology is useful, which I have to combat against at work.
We teach in a very different environment, but your use sounds typical of my colleagues. "I ask it for suggestions and pick one", but nobody seems to wonder about what is lost when we shrink the horizon of what we will teach to the most likely outputs from a chatbot, one of which we will use.
Maybe this makes more sense in other fields. I have to prepare people to work in the shipping industry, in extremely dangerous roles where they will be operating heavy machinery, steering ships, driving cranes etc. The fact is that AI knows next to nothing about this field because an AI cannot experience handling a ship in rough weather, has never secured a boat to a ship's side with the rain and wind in its face.
Yet, when people are brought in to instruct our trainees, they are told to "tell AI what you want and pick one of the suggestions", in the best case, or just give over everything to the AI in the worst case. And nobody seems to be able to explain why this is a better way of working than sitting with a pen and paper, brainstorming some ideas for a lesson based on your real experiences, and then delivering it. The only justification I'm ever given is your one, "I pick from a list so I am really still in control", "it's quicker and I don't have to think as hard or as long", "it's better at making slides or writing good-sounding (to management and auditors) lesson plans". No-one ever seems to justify it by saying it is genuinely a better experience for the trainees.