Of course. We want AI to do the boring mundane stuff so we can work on the interesting hard stuff, not the other way around.
This blog post started off sounding like it was about the plight of highly intellectual and motivated engineers hired to work on very mundane tasks. If we can abuse people like this, why not a computer? After all, it's not even alive.
You're missing the part where despite your rent changing 0 to 20 to 200, housing the three of them actually costs 2000, and they continue operating at a loss in the hopes they can boil-the-frog until you turn them a profit.
Such a weird article.
On r/AskPhysics you'll see people post AI-made crank theories every day. I assume there have been even more, as the mods constantly remove AI posts. So why would I let AI teach me physics?
AI is best at things you already know, or at least used to know. Like you know a foreign dish but you forget the exact name, or an idiom on the tip of your tongue.
Nothing wrong with the situation. At some point in history, humans did not need to spend their entire time in finding food, raising kids, taking care of family and community etc. So they got into services business, selling services to each other. One kid polishes a fine pebble and exchanges it with the other kid for a nicely carved wood piece. Their elders don't see value in any of these and shout at them to go and hunt for more food. But the services thrived, outpacing the real needs of the humans. Technologies and tools evolved claiming magical abilities. Sane humans only care about their basic needs. So they just use the magical tech for the basic needs, which makes perfect sense.
The great thing is you can use these AIs to work on whatever you feel is important to you. The bad news is that you will find their limitations.
Pure delusion.
There are no "digital gods" only the super-powered autocorrect people call "ai". They can't make new stuff. They can't solve novel problems no human has solved before, though they _can_, with the correct setup, brute-force solutions to understandable problems by throwing everything at it until something sticks.
They don't learn. They don't teach. They are not the deities that are presented here. This article is fantasy, projected from real circumstances, by an over-active imagination.
I’m pretty sure Einstein, Hawking and Tao were/are capable of reasoning.
"The best LLMs of the last 6 months spend their time fixing people's grammar"
Doesn't have quite the same ring as a lament
>This is three geniuses for the price of a gym membership
Geniuses? Come on. Let's talk when a LLM is central to a new development in HEP or math. I mean central, like a paradigm shift kind of thing, directly from the AI. A quantum gravity theory, a brand new branch of math, a new approach to a unsolved conjecture, whatever. That's what geniuses do. Not repeating what you can already read in a book! This kind of thing says more about people's ignorance and how impressionable they are than the actual capabilities of the tech. If you think that AI text and image generation _creativity_ can be translated to hard things like math, oh boy.
Then there’s those dudes who ask Einstein to be their girlfriend and to converse with them as such.
purely based off the title of this scenario happened i’d be doing the dishes every night
I'm not a fan of the glib "everyone knows AI systems don't really think, they are just stochastic parrots, all they do is regurgitate ideas they've stolen" schtick, but this article is the reverse of that only worse.
Today's AI systems are pretty impressive but they are absolutely not, not even slightly, the equivalent of Einstein + Hawking + Tao. The reason they get used a lot for tasks along the lines of "rewrite this so it sounds smarter" is that that's what they're best at.
If we did as the author seems to want and tried to use these systems to solve the kinds of problems we need Einsteins, Hawkings and Taos for, then we would be in for one miserable disappointment after another. Maybe some day -- maybe some day very soon -- they'll be able to do that, but not now.
An article proclaiming that today's AI systems are at the level of Einstein mostly suggests to me that the author's own intellectual level isn't much higher than that of the AI systems he falsely equates with them. That seems unlikely, but I don't have a better explanation for how someone could write something so very far from the truth.