The reason these are unsolved is because no-one was working on them.

So you're telling me that any problem a human starts working on gets solved simply because they are a human?

Lets stop and think about this, there is now a machine that can solve a bunch of problems that have not been solved simply because there wasn't enough people with knowledge to work on them, and all we have to do is supply power to get the answers?

Irrational hate causes one to be blind.

▲

latexr 2 days ago | parent [-]

> So you're telling me that any problem a human starts working on gets solved simply because they are a human?

No? I don’t think that’s what they’re saying at all.

> there is now a machine that can solve a bunch of problems that have not been solved simply because there wasn't enough people with knowledge to work on them

That “simply” is doing a ton of work. A big reason there aren’t enough people with knowledge to work on these problems is that their basic needs aren’t met. If a slice of the money being poured into AI right now had been used to incentivise humans to work on these problems, maybe they wouldn’t still be unsolved.

> and all we have to do is supply power to get the answers?

That is again, quite reductive. The harms caused by LLMs, both environmental and societal, are much larger than “just supply power”.

> Irrational hate causes one to be blind.

Funny how it’s always the ones who disagree who are irrational and blind.

▲

pixl97 a day ago | parent [-]

>If a slice of the money being poured into AI right now had been used to incentivise humans to work on these problems

There is no world in which this was ever going to happen or it already would have. Simply throwing out a counter-factual without explaining how any incentive for that path of reality to work means you can make any claim and tell others it's obviously true with no evidence.

>disagree who are irrational and blind

Incorrect. The dialectic is how progress is made. Getting mad and turning off your brain is a different story.

	▲	latexr a day ago \| parent [-]
		> There is no world in which this was ever going to happen That’s the point. The incentive structure we have is bad. That’s the criticism. > Simply throwing out a counter-factual without explaining how any incentive for that path of reality to work means you can make any claim and tell others it's obviously true with no evidence. Again, you’re adding things to the argument which weren’t said. There is as reason “had been” was used.