| ▲ | nimski 10 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
Because I'm guessing your passion was for the craft and not just the result. Before there were factories, if you wanted a chair you needed an artisan to make one for you. When factories pumped out chairs, there was no need for the artisan to make chairs. But building factories that made chairs was a craft in itself. If you wanted a factory to make chairs, you needed an artisan to set one up for you. A craft became redundant, but enabled another to exist. It's natural to mourn a craft that becomes redundant. But such an event is not unique. I do think there is something different about AI, though, in that it attacks the craft of cognition itself. At some point there's no room for a human artisan to build on top. The required faculties become too great for any human mind. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | PaulStatezny 10 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> there is something different about AI, though, in that it attacks the craft of cognition itself. It's particularly frustrating that it's simultaneously superhuman and incredibly unreliable when it comes to cognition. E.g. it can whip out 100,000 lines of code in the time you'd write 500...but 5% of that code will be janky, or subtly buggy, etc. It's the "oh...you're absolutely right!" effect. I can't think of any other tools that are so powerful yet so finnicky and almost guaranteed to fail in ways that are so difficult to detect. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||