I wonder, those objecting to AI, are they also objecting to using any web search or predictive text features? As I understand it, it’s all just varying degrees of the same math.
edit: Ok, I think I see now that it may be more about what it does rather than what it is.
I think there is more nuance or spectrum than good or bad. Vibe is one extreme, but along the dial from traditional to pure vibe are degrees of involvement. I’d characterize the degrees something like:
In 3 of those 4, the human is fundamentally the one owning the output, and AI is an accelerator and potentially an influence, kind of like pair programming. And even the SDD workflow can be a human-in-the-loop approach, although the more agents produce autonomously, the harder it might be for a human to be effective at reviewing the output.
So I’ll agree that “use it or don’t” is a binary, but I’d just add that there’s still a spectrum of how it’s used.
The Earth began to cool…
The autotrophs began to drool…
More efficient, sure, but their argument was about freedom, which is just a different dimension. In an extreme example, private jets provide more freedom than public transportation does, even though it’s obvious which one is worse for the environment, more expensive, more intrusive, etc.
The American education system taught us metric and was quite clear that’s the standard. I’m pretty sure it’s the only unit we used. It’s also the standard within our government, as I’m sure you’ve heard plenty of times in threads like this.
The thing that entrenches Imperial units in our culture is the familiarity from us steeping in it in everyday usage. And we are exposed to both there, too. It’s not about being stupid. It’s just about inertia, and that’s at least in part because the two systems do have their little trade-offs.
This always appears to come up from people who most likely are at least familiar with multiple languages. Why not just standardize on English? Did your education system just fail you? Was that too many words for you? (Obviously not. All intended rhetorically.)
I know US culture is struggling with a current of anti-intellectualism, but if you indulge in reducing nuanced topics to “America stupid”, you’re just watering the weeds in your own garden.
Ever since I started thinking this way, I started finally seeing all the other cars scurrying past me to get to the same red light that we all stopped at. It compounds the calming effect to see validation through others demonstrating the futility of what I no longer choose to do.
edit: To be clear, I’m not saying I totally drag ass and block traffic. I’m just talking about smoothing out my acceleration curves a bit and the occasional person who zips around everyone else, only to hit a stoplight with the rest of us. I’m not that old yet.
Maybe an important point in all this is you don’t have to hide your intentions or even agree. While the idea is to get them to think safely without putting up a defensive perimeter, you can still be genuine about your point of view. How that happens might be circumstantial, but, for example, you can probably always safely say something like, “I’m not saying I agree, but I was curious about your point of view.” Of course, every discussion (and how we navigate it) is going to be different.
It’s sharp with surprisingly sturdy spines.
Pack a towel.