Recent comments in /f/technology

BrdigeTrlol t1_jdqb127 wrote

Honestly if your last sentence is true then the human race is doomed to be disconnected from itself (and possibly doomed period when considering the inevitable result would be plummeting birth rates, but I'm sure we'll be using artificial wombs by this point). I could see a lot of people viewing AI interaction as being more rewarding than human interaction. That's honestly just sad because until AI can physically imitate the intimacy of physical human interaction (which I'm sure they will eventually be able to, but probably not by this point) these people will be missing out on things that are probably crucial for mental health without realizing it (touch of all kinds of incredibly powerful and there is no current or forseeable substitute for it [outside of possibly future pharmaceuticals or similar, but maybe that's where we're inevitably headed]).

−6

Ecstatic_Airline4969 t1_jdqaf3p wrote

I pointed it out in my original comment and its more a comment on your whole school rather than just the indicative quote I picked out.

I read it.

My lack of effort with my throwaway comments here isn't really relevant to your shite attempt at a well written comment about shite writing. It's doesn't take a carpenter to tell you your house is squint. I'm checking back when people reply to me, you seem to be checking back to see if anyone has replied to me, not the same.

1

RamsesThePigeon t1_jdq9vxh wrote

I must be incredibly dumb, then.

If you see something wrong with that clause, please feel free to point it out.

As for the “why,” I already covered that in my original comment. If you’d like, you can read it… or you can keep checking other people’s replies, which it looks like we’re both doing.

“People’s” needs an apostrophe there, by the way.

1

RamsesThePigeon t1_jdq8m72 wrote

There’s nothing wrong with the clause.

I was making an indirect joke about the fact that they couldn’t even read a full sentence before responding, which kind of undermines their ability to gauge the quality of someone else’s writing.

I’d still like to know what they thought was wrong with the clause, though!

1

Zieprus_ t1_jdq861e wrote

If this is true this presents a huge opportunity for google. History has shown that this closed/protectionist business model that Microsoft started a few years back and only seems to be getting worse eventually leads to them being left behind.

ChatGPT is not something they developed and the more it strays from Open-AI the more good people they lose. Having also a CEO who has only ever know Microsoft will eventually catch them out. Not saying they are not successful now just that the closed minded arrogance are warning signs to come.

Edit:Spelling mistake

3

RamsesThePigeon t1_jdq83xj wrote

You know, I’d be willing to take that bet.

I don’t think that a person needs to be an expert in order to tell if something has “life” in it; they just need to care enough to look. You suggested as much yourself: It isn’t a lack of experience (or even taste) that causes junk to become popular; it’s apathy, and that same apathy is being enabled by the incredible amount of “content” available to people nowadays.

Granted, you could make the claim that humans just default to gorging themselves on garbage, and it isn’t much of a step to go from there to the idea that predators – be they television executives or designers of Skinner boxes masquerading as games – will rush to exploit that… but even then, on some level, people tend to realize when they aren’t actually enjoying themselves. That realization might take a while to grow from a vague sense of boredom to a conscious conclusion (and a person could very well move on before the transition takes place), but I’m pretty confident that everyone is capable of experiencing it.

Back to my point, though, the fact that the accusations were downvoted isn’t really relevant. What saddens me is the fact that said accusations were made at all. Yes, you’re right, the accusers are just armchair experts who aren’t really qualified to discuss the topic… but aren’t you the least bit bothered by the fact that folks like them are currently shaping the narrative about ChatGPT and its ilk?

Maybe I’m just getting old, but as that same narrative gets increasing amounts of attention, all I can see is a growing audience that’s going to waste a lot of their limited time on feeling dissatisfied.

−1