Writing things down reveals the lapses in one's own knowledge, and those gaps are opportunities to learn something new.

It saddens me a lot that people are now relying on AI to fill the gaps in their knowledge.

Humans got where they are thanks to their innate curiosity. If you take that away from us, we become no different from animals.

Not just gaps. Blind spots too. Humans are driven by curiosity and limited by biases. You're only painting half of the picture.

> Humans got where they are thanks to their innate curiosity. If you take that away from us, we become no different from animals.

Your message is a bit late. We've had people zoned out in front of their TVs for decades.

I only read articles with headlines that describe informative content, not with headlines that sound funny or thought-provoking.

AI is when Einstein is your butler.

Is there anything we can even call AI that would be correct?

This is the correct opinion have. The text "Del" conveys the same meaning as a trash can and uses less space.

>The more icons we have to scan over, the more brain power we put toward making sense of them rather than using the tools they represent

While we're talking about brains, it's my personal theory that the monochrome icons like those in the screenshots are the bane of all GUI design. Humans were born with the ability to see all colors (that humans can see). Limiting icons to a single color effectively restricts the ability of the icon to convey visual information. If each icon was a distinctive color, we wouldn't even need to look at their shape.

I'm no physicist, but if I remember correctly, light is some form of electromagnetic radiation, which means EMR travels at speed of light. In that case, it's not surprising that an electrostatic field can travel at similar speed.

From my understanding the quote is talking about electrostatic effects that occur when electrons move to fill a void/go away from a negatively charged area. Since the force that makes electrons repeal each other is very weak, I think it makes sense. But note that it mention "a single electron." Voltage deals with a difference in immense scales of electrons, so I assume the effect and speed would be different in practical cases.

Torrenting without seeding is a new low even for Meta.

When Winamp published their source code on Github, not only did they breach third party licenses, but they also had to deal with trolls who across the entire Internet that wanted to make a show out of them. It's hard to blame developers for avoiding open sourcing when you may not get anything out of that except for criticism.

>iPhone fundamentally redefined what a cellphone and a portable computer could be, as did the iPad, creating entirely new consumer and business use cases almost immediately. >So, what exactly has generative AI actually done? Where are the products? No, really, where are they? What's the product you use every day, or week, that uses generative AI, that truly changes your life? If generative AI disappeared tomorrow — assuming you are not somebody who actively builds using it — would your life materially change?

I think ChatGPT and similar generative AI did fundamentally redefine what software could be. Everyone rushed to implement generative AI into every software. Even MS Paint has AI now. Before this, the idea that you would have it was unthinkable.

If it doesn't make any money, that's a separate issue.

>If generative AI disappeared tomorrow — assuming you are not somebody who actively builds using it — would your life materially change?

To put it in another way, you could live without the ability to drag and drop, but that doesn't mean it hasn't redefined user interfaces.

My concern is when you've implemented it and rely on it and then the company providing the service pulls a "Google" and deprecates the project. I haven't seen that mentioned in any of the comments.

This is the same issue that would happen with any closed source software, and why the push for fully open source or at least "semi" open source models (which provide the weights but not the training data). If you are critically dependent on software that can just disappear for reasons out of your control, you're beholden to its developers.

On the flip side I feel that this is the big problem with monetizing AI. AI is already bad enough in that its output is practically always untrusted output, so any customer-facing application of AI requires a second AI to make sure the first AI didn't output anything improper to consumers or even children (because parents are okay with an app that just tells their children randomly generated text, apparently).

It would be a little better if you had control over the model. But without a intellectual property rights over the model, what is the AI company even selling? A GUI? So anyone can just copy and paste the model, skip all the training costs, and just sell a react frontend for the model trained for billions of dollars?

It feels like you can't make money from training the AI in a way that makes sense for customers, but you can make money from selling the AI that someone else trained by selling access to it for non-technical users.

Paywalling /r/wallstreetbets of all things is such a terrible financial decision it's actually fitting.