deleted by creator
I don’t like this at all. Will Hunting is not a machine. Sean is lecturing Will, not to question his humanity, but because Will is still young and has all potential in the world to grow.
Sean even says as much at the beginning of the scene but the writer of the article didn’t felt that was worth including.
Fun little read. Seems like it can be boiled down into what Mao Zedong says, which is a oppose book worship over lived experience.
Still a good little reminder.
It feels weird but good, finally have a collective and individual humanity affirmed, yes our life, our chats, our conversations, our data, our labour, these don’t exist so a deadend algorithm can trained, our labour exists so we can pass on our knowledge for the practice of the next generation. It is never for us, at least not us alone, it is for everyone now and in future.
Hey, this is just Epiphenomenal Qualia but applied to AI.
It’s not wrong, but damn do people need to watch fewer movies and read more.
This is just a variation of Mary the Color Scientist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument
If your goal is human connection, and shared understanding, then sure: AI can never replace that. But that’s not what I use AI for. I use it to “get shit done”. I can spend a bunch of time to improve the “craft” and “beauty” of my code, or I can use AI to get my project done quickly, and move on to my next project. I’m not doing an art project, nor am I doing something for personal inspiration.
I’m using AI as a tool. I have no emotional attachment to the output of my shovel, nor do I ascribe emotional attachment to the outcome of my LLM.
deleted by creator
It’s not about that. It’s about his role in Good Will Hunting.
