AI proofing your job and society

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a prosecutor, which feels pretty AI-proof.

The AI would want to get convictions, it takes a live person to let criminals walk free.

You think we should have AI prosecutors then? Can you explain why?

2 words.

Steve Descano

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AI will be transformational, but not in the way people expect. Instead, it will cause an economic crash when AI never generates the promised revenues because it can't fully replace humans for most jobs. Data centers will have been built but will be unneeded, and massive capital will have been wasted. Big tech, hedge funds, and banks will suffer huge losses from pouring too much money into AI.

Could have written this in 1999 about the internet.

No you couldn’t. No one was claiming in 1999 that the internet would replace most jobs.

In 1999 Y2K was going to shut down society.

How many of us were holed up new years eve in some kind of command or crisis center awaiting societal apocalypse when the computers all short circuited at midnight because they wouldn't know how to roll over to the new century?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AI will be transformational, but not in the way people expect. Instead, it will cause an economic crash when AI never generates the promised revenues because it can't fully replace humans for most jobs. Data centers will have been built but will be unneeded, and massive capital will have been wasted. Big tech, hedge funds, and banks will suffer huge losses from pouring too much money into AI.

Could have written this in 1999 about the internet.

No you couldn’t. No one was claiming in 1999 that the internet would replace most jobs.

In 1999 Y2K was going to shut down society.

How many of us were holed up new years eve in some kind of command or crisis center awaiting societal apocalypse when the computers all short circuited at midnight because they wouldn't know how to roll over to the new century?

are you stupid, that was hype around a single minute event that didn't happen. AI has been happening for over a year now and it replacing jobs, if you don't use ai your job is replaced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not worried about the job component of AI. AI uses SO much water. The enviro aspect is so much more concerning. We won’t need jobs if we’re all fighting for drinking water.

You sure about that?

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

Who is this person whose blog you linked and why should anyone believe them or care what they have to say?

Yes, random DCUM anonymous commenter with no substantive arguments has more credibility......

I’m not the one making an argument. You are. You’re citing some rando high school teacher’s blog to support it. I’m asking you why his opinion has any merit. The fact you still haven’t explained is pretty telling.

Why does the unsubstantiated opinion that AI uses SO much water have any merit? The fact that you accept it uncritically is pretty telling...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not worried about the job component of AI. AI uses SO much water. The enviro aspect is so much more concerning. We won’t need jobs if we’re all fighting for drinking water.

You sure about that?

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

Who is this person whose blog you linked and why should anyone believe them or care what they have to say?

Andy is who anyone tracking this would point you to. I was going to do it but PP got there first.

Correct, he also forced a concession from Karen Hao's misleading and inaccurate use of water use statistics in Empire of AI on the very same blog. AI alarmism evangelists like her are a huge reason for so much misinformation that is being lapped up. If you want to criticize AI (and there are real concerns) at least get your basic math correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not worried about the job component of AI. AI uses SO much water. The enviro aspect is so much more concerning. We won’t need jobs if we’re all fighting for drinking water.

You sure about that?

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

Who is this person whose blog you linked and why should anyone believe them or care what they have to say?

Yes, random DCUM anonymous commenter with no substantive arguments has more credibility......

I’m not the one making an argument. You are. You’re citing some rando high school teacher’s blog to support it. I’m asking you why his opinion has any merit. The fact you still haven’t explained is pretty telling.

Why does the unsubstantiated opinion that AI uses SO much water have any merit? The fact that you accept it uncritically is pretty telling...

I haven’t accepted it. But the only argument presented against is one from a random blogger. That is worth no more than any other “unsubstantiated opinion” unless you can give a reason why this Andy guy has any extra authority on the topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not worried about the job component of AI. AI uses SO much water. The enviro aspect is so much more concerning. We won’t need jobs if we’re all fighting for drinking water.

You sure about that?

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

Who is this person whose blog you linked and why should anyone believe them or care what they have to say?

Andy is who anyone tracking this would point you to. I was going to do it but PP got there first.

Correct, he also forced a concession from Karen Hao's misleading and inaccurate use of water use statistics in Empire of AI on the very same blog. AI alarmism evangelists like her are a huge reason for so much misinformation that is being lapped up. If you want to criticize AI (and there are real concerns) at least get your basic math correct.

Again, who are these people and why should anyone care what they say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not worried about the job component of AI. AI uses SO much water. The enviro aspect is so much more concerning. We won’t need jobs if we’re all fighting for drinking water.

You sure about that?

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

Who is this person whose blog you linked and why should anyone believe them or care what they have to say?

Yes, random DCUM anonymous commenter with no substantive arguments has more credibility......

I’m not the one making an argument. You are. You’re citing some rando high school teacher’s blog to support it. I’m asking you why his opinion has any merit. The fact you still haven’t explained is pretty telling.

Why does the unsubstantiated opinion that AI uses SO much water have any merit? The fact that you accept it uncritically is pretty telling...

I haven’t accepted it. But the only argument presented against is one from a random blogger. That is worth no more than any other “unsubstantiated opinion” unless you can give a reason why this Andy guy has any extra authority on the topic.

Ah, I see. You are one of those "appeal to authority" people. Have a good day staying uninformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not worried about the job component of AI. AI uses SO much water. The enviro aspect is so much more concerning. We won’t need jobs if we’re all fighting for drinking water.

You sure about that?

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

Who is this person whose blog you linked and why should anyone believe them or care what they have to say?

Yes, random DCUM anonymous commenter with no substantive arguments has more credibility......

I’m not the one making an argument. You are. You’re citing some rando high school teacher’s blog to support it. I’m asking you why his opinion has any merit. The fact you still haven’t explained is pretty telling.

Why does the unsubstantiated opinion that AI uses SO much water have any merit? The fact that you accept it uncritically is pretty telling...

I haven’t accepted it. But the only argument presented against is one from a random blogger. That is worth no more than any other “unsubstantiated opinion” unless you can give a reason why this Andy guy has any extra authority on the topic.

Ah, I see. You are one of those "appeal to authority" people. Have a good day staying uninformed.

In other words, the person you’re citing has no credibility, and your only argument is that no one is credible. How dumb are you?

How do you know what this Andy person says is true? You don’t. You just like what he says, so you believe it. It’s moronic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not worried about the job component of AI. AI uses SO much water. The enviro aspect is so much more concerning. We won’t need jobs if we’re all fighting for drinking water.

You sure about that?

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

Who is this person whose blog you linked and why should anyone believe them or care what they have to say?

Yes, random DCUM anonymous commenter with no substantive arguments has more credibility......

I’m not the one making an argument. You are. You’re citing some rando high school teacher’s blog to support it. I’m asking you why his opinion has any merit. The fact you still haven’t explained is pretty telling.

Why does the unsubstantiated opinion that AI uses SO much water have any merit? The fact that you accept it uncritically is pretty telling...

I haven’t accepted it. But the only argument presented against is one from a random blogger. That is worth no more than any other “unsubstantiated opinion” unless you can give a reason why this Andy guy has any extra authority on the topic.

Ah, I see. You are one of those "appeal to authority" people. Have a good day staying uninformed.

In other words, the person you’re citing has no credibility, and your only argument is that no one is credible. How dumb are you?

How do you know what this Andy person says is true? You don’t. You just like what he says, so you believe it. It’s moronic.

He shows his work and it prompted a retraction. This is not really negotiable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not worried about the job component of AI. AI uses SO much water. The enviro aspect is so much more concerning. We won’t need jobs if we’re all fighting for drinking water.

You sure about that?

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

Who is this person whose blog you linked and why should anyone believe them or care what they have to say?

Yes, random DCUM anonymous commenter with no substantive arguments has more credibility......

I’m not the one making an argument. You are. You’re citing some rando high school teacher’s blog to support it. I’m asking you why his opinion has any merit. The fact you still haven’t explained is pretty telling.

Why does the unsubstantiated opinion that AI uses SO much water have any merit? The fact that you accept it uncritically is pretty telling...

I haven’t accepted it. But the only argument presented against is one from a random blogger. That is worth no more than any other “unsubstantiated opinion” unless you can give a reason why this Andy guy has any extra authority on the topic.

Ah, I see. You are one of those "appeal to authority" people. Have a good day staying uninformed.

In other words, the person you’re citing has no credibility, and your only argument is that no one is credible. How dumb are you?

How do you know what this Andy person says is true? You don’t. You just like what he says, so you believe it. It’s moronic.

Listen, read it or don't. If you can't read a laid-out, cited argument and process and assess it for yourself, you have more problems than I can help you with. Do you argue about the credentials of every author that gets posted? Done playing this dumb game with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not worried about the job component of AI. AI uses SO much water. The enviro aspect is so much more concerning. We won’t need jobs if we’re all fighting for drinking water.

You sure about that?

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

Who is this person whose blog you linked and why should anyone believe them or care what they have to say?

Yes, random DCUM anonymous commenter with no substantive arguments has more credibility......

I’m not the one making an argument. You are. You’re citing some rando high school teacher’s blog to support it. I’m asking you why his opinion has any merit. The fact you still haven’t explained is pretty telling.

Why does the unsubstantiated opinion that AI uses SO much water have any merit? The fact that you accept it uncritically is pretty telling...

I haven’t accepted it. But the only argument presented against is one from a random blogger. That is worth no more than any other “unsubstantiated opinion” unless you can give a reason why this Andy guy has any extra authority on the topic.

Ah, I see. You are one of those "appeal to authority" people. Have a good day staying uninformed.

In other words, the person you’re citing has no credibility, and your only argument is that no one is credible. How dumb are you?

How do you know what this Andy person says is true? You don’t. You just like what he says, so you believe it. It’s moronic.

Listen, read it or don't. If you can't read a laid-out, cited argument and process and assess it for yourself, you have more problems than I can help you with. Do you argue about the credentials of every author that gets posted? Done playing this dumb game with you.

Why don’t you sit down and just explain the argument and why it’s credible. You can’t. You probably don’t even understand the article, know what data sources it relies on, or understand whether the math and analysis it uses to make its conclusion are correct.

Unless you can personally assess that, which most people cannot because they are not statisticians, you have to rely on the credibility of the author. But you can’t even do anything to explain why he’s credible.

Why do YOU believe what he says?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not worried about the job component of AI. AI uses SO much water. The enviro aspect is so much more concerning. We won’t need jobs if we’re all fighting for drinking water.

You sure about that?

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

Who is this person whose blog you linked and why should anyone believe them or care what they have to say?

Yes, random DCUM anonymous commenter with no substantive arguments has more credibility......

I’m not the one making an argument. You are. You’re citing some rando high school teacher’s blog to support it. I’m asking you why his opinion has any merit. The fact you still haven’t explained is pretty telling.

Why does the unsubstantiated opinion that AI uses SO much water have any merit? The fact that you accept it uncritically is pretty telling...

I haven’t accepted it. But the only argument presented against is one from a random blogger. That is worth no more than any other “unsubstantiated opinion” unless you can give a reason why this Andy guy has any extra authority on the topic.

Ah, I see. You are one of those "appeal to authority" people. Have a good day staying uninformed.

In other words, the person you’re citing has no credibility, and your only argument is that no one is credible. How dumb are you?

How do you know what this Andy person says is true? You don’t. You just like what he says, so you believe it. It’s moronic.

He shows his work and it prompted a retraction. This is not really negotiable.

A retraction from who? Why does it matter? You people are morons if you can’t even explain basic things like this.

Let me guess, you leaned all about Andy the blogger after seeing some other rando link to him on Xitter or Reddit and you liked that he says things you agree with. Do I have it right? This is the exact same thing as all the BS crypto scammers spouting jargon to make it sound like their precious NFTs were anything but digital tulip bulbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not worried about the job component of AI. AI uses SO much water. The enviro aspect is so much more concerning. We won’t need jobs if we’re all fighting for drinking water.

You sure about that?

https://blog.andymasley.com/p/the-ai-water-issue-is-fake

Who is this person whose blog you linked and why should anyone believe them or care what they have to say?

Yes, random DCUM anonymous commenter with no substantive arguments has more credibility......

I’m not the one making an argument. You are. You’re citing some rando high school teacher’s blog to support it. I’m asking you why his opinion has any merit. The fact you still haven’t explained is pretty telling.

Why does the unsubstantiated opinion that AI uses SO much water have any merit? The fact that you accept it uncritically is pretty telling...

I haven’t accepted it. But the only argument presented against is one from a random blogger. That is worth no more than any other “unsubstantiated opinion” unless you can give a reason why this Andy guy has any extra authority on the topic.

Ah, I see. You are one of those "appeal to authority" people. Have a good day staying uninformed.

In other words, the person you’re citing has no credibility, and your only argument is that no one is credible. How dumb are you?

How do you know what this Andy person says is true? You don’t. You just like what he says, so you believe it. It’s moronic.

Listen, read it or don't. If you can't read a laid-out, cited argument and process and assess it for yourself, you have more problems than I can help you with. Do you argue about the credentials of every author that gets posted? Done playing this dumb game with you.

Why don’t you sit down and just explain the argument and why it’s credible. You can’t. You probably don’t even understand the article, know what data sources it relies on, or understand whether the math and analysis it uses to make its conclusion are correct.

Unless you can personally assess that, which most people cannot because they are not statisticians, you have to rely on the credibility of the author. But you can’t even do anything to explain why he’s credible.

Why do YOU believe what he says?

I guess you picked don't. Stay ignorant. Enjoy!