I think current state-of-the-art AI is useful for when you are not having a novel thought.

I believe that AI, at least in the form of LLMs, is currently incapable of novelty in the sense of creating a new concept or a new thought with reason and purpose behind it.

For instance, if I was going to write a book, I might consult with LLMs about how to fill in the slow gaps or the dead spaces in my storyline and to fully come up with a completely fleshed out story that I would then write without its assistance.

My assumption is that anything that it fills in is going to be cobbled together from literally hundreds of thousands of other similar stories, and therefore it will not be new or unique in any way.

If I was really trying to push the envelope, I would then assume that the right thing to do would be that whatever it says is ordinary and common, and if I want to be extraordinary and uncommon, then I need to use that as a launch point for my own gap-filling content.

Therefore, I could use an LLM to write a good story with a new concept, a new premise, a new storyline that is relatively unique and original by using the LLM to clearly identify those things that are not.

I think ddg and Google are performing worse because of AI. Pushing their AI services and the tsunami of AI slop make a search harder than SEO did and deprioritizes fixing it.

Ah, but you see, I never claimed AI isn't useful. In fact, you can check my comment history. I've agreed AI is a very useful tool, I still think it shouldn't be used for ethical, social, and personal reasons

A problem with nuance is that people want to discuss the specifics and nuances of what they care about but for the most part won't do that on subjects for other people. So you need to tailor your responses to your audience. FWIW on Lemmy I see a lot more instances of people with specificly opposed takes where both sides have similar vote counts. So while it's not perfect it's better than most

It could be argued that people are AGI. Are they always trustworthy?

Would it? I run a science fiction book club and there're a lot of arguments that if something achieved human level intelligence that it would immediately try to kill us, not become our perfect servants

The fact is is that like it or not it does speed us up

This is not a fact at all.

They just worked harder than the rest of us and had good ideas at the right time.

Erm, no, that still doesn’t make their labour worth thousands of times more than the next person.

People I talk to know millionaire workaholics and think that but for some timing that person would be a billionaire because they don’t understand how orders of magnitude work. 100k in the bank vs 1 million is a much smaller barrier than 1 million vs 1 billion never mind 100 billion

I don't think people would stop at billionaires. They'd keep going until it got uncomfortably close to their own level of wealth, but the people worse off than them wouldn't stop there, either.

I'm pretty sure my friends are real, and none of them are installing Linux any time soon.

By skimming the front page I don't see many tankie-traits. Loads of communism and socialism, sure, but not much tankie stuff. But I'm sure there's a lot of them in the comments with "interesting" takes on the cultural revolution and the holodomor.

I've experienced many lemmies calling for the censorship of others, calls for defederation, etc... maybe its just me

Fascism isn't a popular opinion

But being against it is unpopular