I will have to read this again as it is too rich to take in in one reading. So much thinking here. Thank you
Am I right that you sometimes here clump all users together, a unitary "us"? I worry about that since there are so many different kinds of users and uses. Seems difficult to think there is a "we" that is having experiences of AI. There seem to b many people doing many different things and having widely different experiences.
And I wonder too, where are the people who own and are creating AI in this mix of making? They seem to have much more power over how AI responds than we "mere" users do. Yes, we customers are shaping these tools, but for now and for the foreseeable future they seem likely to me to shaped much more by Xi in China, and a few rather untrustworthy rich men in the USA.
They can alter, eliminate, recalibrate, etcetera at their whim, and for their profit, regardless of what we might want our AI to do.
But I think I may be missing something. As I said, I need to read this again. Thanks for offering this to us.
You're absolutely right that there's no universal "we" these insights come from my specific position, thank you for this generous but crucial critique that complicates the thinking in exactly the right ways.
This is so on point it actually hurts.
Real skill today is not production, but a critical approach to decision-making that joins speed with wisdom.
I will have to read this again as it is too rich to take in in one reading. So much thinking here. Thank you
Am I right that you sometimes here clump all users together, a unitary "us"? I worry about that since there are so many different kinds of users and uses. Seems difficult to think there is a "we" that is having experiences of AI. There seem to b many people doing many different things and having widely different experiences.
And I wonder too, where are the people who own and are creating AI in this mix of making? They seem to have much more power over how AI responds than we "mere" users do. Yes, we customers are shaping these tools, but for now and for the foreseeable future they seem likely to me to shaped much more by Xi in China, and a few rather untrustworthy rich men in the USA.
They can alter, eliminate, recalibrate, etcetera at their whim, and for their profit, regardless of what we might want our AI to do.
But I think I may be missing something. As I said, I need to read this again. Thanks for offering this to us.
You're absolutely right that there's no universal "we" these insights come from my specific position, thank you for this generous but crucial critique that complicates the thinking in exactly the right ways.