Interested in the intersections between policy, law and technology. Programmer, lawyer, civil servant, orthodox Marxist. Blind.


Interesado en la intersección entre la política, el derecho y la tecnología. Programador, abogado, funcionario, marxista ortodoxo. Ciego.

  • 29 Posts
  • 136 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle

  • Two things I found interesting:

    Effects are concentrated among users who seek direct solutions: Persistence costs were concentrated among participants who prompted AI to solve tasks for them directly. Using AI for hints or clarifications did not produce significant impairments.

    So that’s a major caveat.

    Another interesting thing would be to know if this is an AI effect specifically, or a technical aid effect generally. For instance, would a calculator produce similar results?





  • I liked Anathem a lot. I think I enjoyed all of Neal Stephenson’s books up to (but excluding) Seveneves, whereupon I gave up on him. Anathem is one of my favourite books.

    spoiler

    However, it’s true that Neal Stephenson somewhat recycles the same themes and concerns. For example, the whole “radioactive storage under an academic institution” thing was used in The Big U as well. The theme regarding Platonism appeared in different forms, for instance in the exploration of the organ in Cryptonomicon. That didn’t stop me from enjoying it though.

    The whole notion of monks in space seems absurd because of how people see monks. But this is both ahistorical and contrary to the way they work in the book. Copernicus and Mendel were monks. And these particular ones were all about learning maths and theorics (physics). They didn’t optimise for technology, because they weren’t allowed, but they optimised for learning, for extracting information out of tiny details. I think they’d do alright in a scientific(ish) mission.










  • Interesting article, and I definitely agree I prefer clear instructions when those are possible.

    I only have an objection. When it’s said that no matter how well chatbots behave, it’s bad design, and that they’re being used to substitute expensive people; well, expensive people’s interface is chatting too. So in that regard I’m not sure there’s a meaningful difference. Obviously there is if the chatbot is badly behaved, but the article says that it’s a problem even setting that aside.