We're collectively discovering that it was about the process too, not just results.<p>I'm not questioning if AI delivers, it does, and you need - cannot say it more politely - a reality check if you think it's completely useless.<p>It's just that we are social creatures and those communities provided more than just technical answers to many.
> We're collectively discovering that it was about the process too, not just results.<p>Being able to judge the reliability of the source was huge. AI is a great discovery engine, but a terrible source for reliable information.
I wouldn't say terrible, and even the most reliable people have bad days. I think the difference is when you are dealing with people, you don't get a generic "you're absolutely right" when you point at a mistake.<p>Sometimes you get an apology, sometimes you get a wall of ego, sometimes you get reverse-corrected etc., instead of a statistically significant "remedy". This is totally not efficient, but if life should be all about efficiency, we should never live at all.
I’ve spent a lot of time chasing <i>really</i> plausible sounding explanations from AI. I’ve also saved a lot of time by having AI give me immediate, correct answers for problems I can only vaguely describe. The reason I call it a terrible source is that it doesn’t “know” which is which, so it can’t favor the accurate content.<p>StackExchange could always “learn” to favor accurate answers with social queues; votes, poster rep, etc.. IMHO it’s far more reliable than AI.
And, note, that perhaps - even <i>more</i> of those social interactions will <i>also</i> be absorbed, along with the participants, into the Chat model's sphere. It wants, and will get, all: Result(s), process, and participants. It is grey goo for all intellectual - and soon, emotional - work and products and inputs and byproducts.-
Being useful and being good for us is not the same thing. I don't think I've heard many people say LLMs don't do what they are supposed to do.
> We're collectively discovering that it was about the process too, not just results.<p>We. I remember five years ago in the old manual days. When the 10Xers would culturally gatekeep programming based on whether people intrinsically liked coding itself. I.e. the process.<p>Then there was a curious shift. Several elites had a realization: oh it was never about the process for me. I just like getting the results. (In however an alienating way.) "I'm pragmatic"<p>> I'm not questioning if AI delivers, it does, and you need - cannot say it more politely - a reality check if you think it's completely useless.<p>Why fret. The doubters will be washed away by the flood anyway. I’m completely serious. Either if or when, it’s not like anyone can stay a doubter on a computer if (if or when) everything is transformed.<p>I can never understand these faith rituals. First declare that you are a believer. Then declare that the doubters are delusional. Politely.<p>But delusion is a reality-correcting problem, except for the clinically ill.