Yes we do!
I didn’t fully grok how tone deaf I was being though.
It’s nice to see grok being used in the Heinlein sense and not the Musk sense. The article tracks with my experience, anyway. People who use AI how they choose are generally seeing a return. People who are forced to use it to do things it can’t do… hate it.
I don’t think she’s wrong. Treating Generative AI LLM’S as an innovation and studied to see what it can do and how it can benefit a business makes as much sense as any other innovation.
Pretending it is the panacea to all that ails every company in spite of the rot it’s actually directly causing is the problem, but the solution isn’t to change the way we implement AI.
It’s fruit of the poison tree at this point. You’re asking someone who’s already been burned by the fire that’s been let to rage out of control to build a smaller more manageable fire, and expecting them to just overcome a fear response because the fire hasn’t burned you personally.
It was a good idea to harness fire, though, right? E: Nevermind, I re-read your comment and you basically say that in the first sentence.
I’m not saying that the AI is bad in and of itself. I’m just saying that essentially you can’t blame to people of Japan for not like nukes after we nuked them twice (the perhaps most devastating use of harnessed fire, in my probably not very good analogy).
If we want to make something good from AI, continuing down this path isn’t the way after it’s actively harmed so many people. Doesn’t mean Nuclear power plants aren’t a good idea. Or something. I don’t even know anymore. This analogy has gotten so far away from me.