I fear that I could be running headlong into a trap that you have carefully placed in front of me, but I am pretty sure that the invention of the printing press led to the creation of many, many jobs and indeed a major expansion of the publishing industry.
As for the monks, some of them converted their scriptoriums into print workshops which they ran. Others focussed on inscribing high-value manuscripts, such as university degree certificates. And others turned their attention to their core vocations, which my research suggests included prayer, theology and monastic breweries.
Although the number of monks today is much lower than pre-Gutenberg, I've not found any evidence to suggest that the number dropped because of Gutenberg's invention.
AI can’t fully understand the world in which it exists because it will never be subject to the same environment primers and levers as humans. It doesn’t have source a roof over its head or navigate economic dynamics to « earn a living ». It cannot smell and taste. The only thing that can happen is we can dumb down enough to think it is superior.
Many thanks for commenting. I agree with you, but I would go much further. The reality is that AI doesn't understand anything because it has no ability to do so. So, for example, Large Language Models (eg ChatGPT) just generate words but have no greater understanding of what the sentences mean than this webpage has.
Likewise, it has been established that some AI radiology systems have based their diagnoses on factors that are not relevant, such as which machine the scan was performed on. So if a new patient was scanned on a machine that has, historically, had a high number of positive results, the AI was more likely to assess this patient as positive than it would have done if the same patient had been scanned on a different machine. Obviously, once the humans identify this, they can correct it, but my point here is to demonstrate that the machine isn't diagnosing based on any understanding of what the illness is.
Absolutely. For sure jobs are being and will be lost, as they have been with the advent of almost every significant technological advance. And for sure those workers who do not rise to the challenge of using AI as a productivity tool will be vulnerable even if the positions they hold are not lost.
Where the real challenge lies, of course, is with the public sector. Where politics, currently, always trumps economics. Likely no job losses but - hopefully? - significant AI investment. Win-win? Not for the tax payer :( Or public sector productivity I fear.
What happened to all those monks, when Gutenberg invented printing? Just asking
I fear that I could be running headlong into a trap that you have carefully placed in front of me, but I am pretty sure that the invention of the printing press led to the creation of many, many jobs and indeed a major expansion of the publishing industry.
As for the monks, some of them converted their scriptoriums into print workshops which they ran. Others focussed on inscribing high-value manuscripts, such as university degree certificates. And others turned their attention to their core vocations, which my research suggests included prayer, theology and monastic breweries.
Although the number of monks today is much lower than pre-Gutenberg, I've not found any evidence to suggest that the number dropped because of Gutenberg's invention.
Do tell me if I am wrong.
AI can’t fully understand the world in which it exists because it will never be subject to the same environment primers and levers as humans. It doesn’t have source a roof over its head or navigate economic dynamics to « earn a living ». It cannot smell and taste. The only thing that can happen is we can dumb down enough to think it is superior.
Many thanks for commenting. I agree with you, but I would go much further. The reality is that AI doesn't understand anything because it has no ability to do so. So, for example, Large Language Models (eg ChatGPT) just generate words but have no greater understanding of what the sentences mean than this webpage has.
Likewise, it has been established that some AI radiology systems have based their diagnoses on factors that are not relevant, such as which machine the scan was performed on. So if a new patient was scanned on a machine that has, historically, had a high number of positive results, the AI was more likely to assess this patient as positive than it would have done if the same patient had been scanned on a different machine. Obviously, once the humans identify this, they can correct it, but my point here is to demonstrate that the machine isn't diagnosing based on any understanding of what the illness is.
thats a good way of putting it.
Absolutely. For sure jobs are being and will be lost, as they have been with the advent of almost every significant technological advance. And for sure those workers who do not rise to the challenge of using AI as a productivity tool will be vulnerable even if the positions they hold are not lost.
Where the real challenge lies, of course, is with the public sector. Where politics, currently, always trumps economics. Likely no job losses but - hopefully? - significant AI investment. Win-win? Not for the tax payer :( Or public sector productivity I fear.