zlacker

One recent post I read about improving the discourse (which I seem to have lost the link...) agrees, but in a different way: adding a "capable vs not" axis. that is, "I believe AI is good enough to replace humans, and I am pro" is different than "I believe AI is good enough to replace humans, and I am against" and while "I believe AI is not good enough to replace humans, and I am pro" is a weird position to take, "I believe AI is not good enough to replace humans, and I am against."

These things are also not binary, they're a full grid of space.

>>stevek+(OP)
> "I believe AI is not good enough to replace humans, and I am pro" is a weird position to take

Huh? The recipe how to be in this position is literally in the readme of the linked project. You don’t even have to believe it, you just have to work it.

>>stevek+(OP)
> "I believe AI is not good enough to replace humans, and I am pro" is a weird position to take

I think that's just the opinion of someone who doesn't think AI currently lives up to the hype but is optimistic about developing it further, not really that weird of a position in my opinion.

Personally I'm moving more into the "I think AI is good enough to replace humans, and I am against" category.

>>baq+24
I mean at the most extreme: that it can NEVER do so. Someone who holds this position would point to commits like >>44159659

>>jakeyd+I8
Yeah, I meant like, at the full extreme of "and it never will". Someone with the position you describe wouldn't be at the far end, but somewhere closer to the middle.

>>stevek+(OP)
I believe compilers are not good enough to replace humans, and I am pro

>>stevek+Yh
To that I can only respond with never say never. Not this year? Yes. Not next year? Sign me up. Not in the next 10 years? Let’s say I’m looking at my hardware career options after 20 years in software.

>>baq+Mg1
If you should never say never, you are already contradicting yourself.