Fawkes

You're talking past each other, using "better" in different ways. Correct, my cooking is technically inferior to restaurant cooking for exactly the reasons you described. However, the recipes themselves are designed by an individual with preferences. Even if my cooking is technically inferior, it will be 'better' simply because I am cooking for my own palate and preferences. Same word, completely different meaning.

I understand your justifiable concern, however I disagree with the blanket statement.

First off, if I remember the video correctly, it is not hidden that Waymo was the video sponser. It may not have been in the spotlight, but I don't think that's automatically a bad thing.

Secondly, it is very possible for some one to hold different opinions to yours, even with identical evidence. It was clear to me that he really did like the technology and made his best case for it. If new information has come to light, then that's worth re-examining the opinion. Personally, I have always been in fabour of replacing human drivers with AI, for a wide variety of reasons. I agree with his sentiment that the sooner we replace human drivers, the safer we'll all be. That being said, there is obviously a conflict of interest in the industry between making the technology safe, and profitable. And we all know what happens the larger an organization gets.

Third, the majority of the videos are not opinion pieces. They explain physics, chemistry, mechanics, etc. I'm not sure how some one can misrepresent physics, without being objectively wrong. And they seem to be pretty universally correct in their rigor. There has been more than one instance where the channel has come under scrutiny for being accused of manipulating experiments, and each time he comes back to re-explain the experiment and show that it had been misunderstood, not misrepresented.

https://www.iflscience.com/youtuber-derek-muller-won-a-10000-physics-bet-against-professor-60235

Hard to find a direct like but the "How electricity works" controversy also seems to fit this theme.

I am not saying the channel is above skepticism or is the poster child of perfection by any means. But I don't think it's fair to boycott on the grounds of a single opinion you happen to disagree with, especially when that opinion is genuinely based on available research and evidence. I think this is actually a disservice to progress as a whole. If you find an enemy in everyone that does share your exact values, it leaves progressives divided.

This is the first I'm hearing of this, usually it's the opposite. Care to provide justification and evidence?

Yeah, I figured that was probably the case when I asked what evidence might change their mind, and the question was just ignored. Still, I was mildly entertained by pointing out their logical errors, so it wasn't a complete waste of my time lol.

Actually, that's materially incorrect. You are making the universal claim that a technology has literally no uses, and every single person that claims otherwise is either ignorant, or has been grifted.

I am making the counter-argument that, while I agree with the overall concerns with misuse, and misrepresentation, claiming it has literally no use is objectively false.

Anecdotal would be "I've heard people have found uses for it." Or "My cousin says it helps him do XYZ."

I have given you a specific example of my own use. That is not anecdotal, that is a definitive, replicateable, counter point.

You have decided to dismiss it, because making a universal sweeping claim inherently requires the dismissal of all counter points in order to remain intact.

I'm sorry that you're so angry, and have convinced yourself the world is trying to gaslight you, that doesn't seem like a healthy belief. I won't be responding further.

You're contradicting yourself and not seeing it. You're universally saying it has absolutely no uses, and using your own experiences and others, as evidence. When counter-evidence is provided, you dismiss it because you can only speak from your own experiences.

Either other peoples experiences are valid, and you must accept that some people have found genuine uses for the technology, despite your hatred for the industry and the false marketing around it.

Or other peoples experiences are not valid, in which case there's no point in talking about anything, because you will not consider it valid unless you personally experience it.

You should speak to others experiences because you are making the universal statement that is has literally no uses, contrary to many people stating they have, in fact, found uses for it.

So either every single person that believes they have found a novel use for it is wrong. Or you have universally decided that none of their experiences are valid in forming your opinion.

Considering I have found a use for it, that does not require it to write code, paint pictures, or tell me I'm right about everything, why is my usage invalid in nullifying your statement that "GenAI does not have any uses."

There is no ambiguity in that statement, and yet I have found use for it.

Why didn't you remark on my own usage? You're speaking from your own experience but seem to be ignoring others. Your personal experience is not more valid than others. Or are you convinced that 100% of people who have found any degree of use for it have some how been tricked?

Edit.

Upon re-reading your reply, I have to ask a simple question. What would need to be demonstrated in order to change your mind? If you can think of an honest criteria, we can keep talking about it. If your first response is to say "There is literally nothing that can change my mind." Then this is not a discussion, it is simply you expressing anger and indignation.

And I'm sorry to say, but if you're engaging in conversation without a single iota of willingness to see the other sides perspective or reasoning, then you're a bad conversation partner and are consciously choosing to be arrogant, even if your side is the "Correct" side.

Have I come across as rude or dismissive that you felt the need to mock and belittle me? I tried to form my response respectfully while pointing out possible areas of bias.

Then why have seasoned programmers accepted that getting an LLM to generate messy code, then tidying it up, is often faster than writing 2 dozen lines themselves?

Or myself, I use it with TTRPGs, to simplify NPC creation under a set of structured rules. I still play the characters as unique individuals, but being able to click a button and have 4 personality points to base any nameless NPC around is a lot more fun and dynamic than trying to come up with new characters I didn't expect the group to speak to, on the spot.

Claiming it does not have any uses at all seems like an expression of your own lack of creativity, or willingness to adapt to new technology. I don't need to worship the tech-bros to find a use for new technologies.

Can GenAI replace a human? No. There is no context in which human work can be fully replaced by GenAI. But that doesn't mean it cannot simplify and enhance skilled workers that understand its limitations and use it to increase their own productivity.

Is it possible you're so engrossed in anger and disgust at how it is being marketed, that you're deciding to hate the entire concept rather than the fact it is bring misused, and it's capabilities are being wildly exaggerated to the point of lies? Or that the disgusting manipulation of empty promises on empty promises on empty promises, with the bullshit happening around RAM prices, GPU prices, etc. Or entire workforces being fired in order to be replaced by LLMs is making you prejudiced against the tool, rather than those using it to justify abuse and idiocy?

If hammers were used to kill more people than guns or knives, would you claim there is no reason to ever use or own a hammer?

Yes, and while we're at it let'd refuse to read books not written by scribes. And refuse clothes not woven by hand.

I understand the frustration with the industry, but at the end of the day it is a tool, and it has its uses. Just because it is being misused doesn't mean it's universally bad. This just seems petty and misdirected.

I mean, yes that's absolutely true, but many Americans really do prefer to drive even short distances. When I lived in North Carolina people regularly drove to the other side of the parking lot to eat, shop at different stores, meet up with friends, etc. I asked several people why they didn't walk, and every single one said they hated walking and would drive or re-park if it was further than a few seconds walk.

Sorry to hear, but thanks for considering! Yeah, the time is likely a bit of an issue for a lot of people, I'd imagine. I'm in Germany, another player is in the UK, and the other 3 people are night-owls from the US lol.