I seriously doubt people are reading this far and confirmed by none of our comments have gotten an up vote this far down. And again, if what you are saying is obvious to all then there’s no need to comment further if you are appealing to an audience. I think this has more to do with being in control (as evidence by trying to always enforce the boundaries of the conversation even when you yourself violate those same boundaries).

If it is as transparent as you say then you wouldn’t have the need to comment any further. So why did you?

Interesting, I didn’t accuse you of being emotional just that you have emotional needs. Everyone has emotional needs. Nonviolent Communication is a great tool for disentangling judgements from needs; for example, calling me dishonest speaks to a need for integrity.

Yeah, I wasn’t asking for your professional opinion on gAI but why you feel the need to attack people’s professional reputation when it can only detract from your argument. I have no intention of debating someone who levels such insults but I am happy to talk about the emotional needs around such actions.

Just as you questioned my intention with accusations of dishonesty I am wondering what your intention is when disparaging a random person’s professional pedigrees (with no effort to make the person known to yourself first). I made my perspective on this known to you and I am trying to understand what your intention was as it does not aide in the debate you so vigilantly protect.

Honestly not sure what I expected in terms of a response but this is certainly an interesting reaction. “Calling someone dishonest is not a personal attack” is certainly a take. It’s also interesting that dishonesty is your automatic conclusion when there are other alternatives when someone approached you with a different professional experience; absent is the tendency of expert practitioners to be curious about contextual clues that can lead to different outcomes. I’m going to take your criticism in good faith and recognize this is probably the standard you hold yourself to: that any part of yourself that does not comport to the current ideal is to be treated with suspicion.

Your description of the tools was to make an inaccurate comparison. But sure, I am the “dangerous” one for showing how those examples are deterministic while gAI is not. Your responses with personal attacks makes it harder to address your claims and makes me think you are here to convince yourself and not others.

I’ve literally integrated LLMs into a materials optimizations routine at Apple. It’s dangerous to assume what strangers do and do not know.

All the technologies you listed behave deterministically, or at least predictably enough that we generally don’t have to worry about surprises from that abstraction layer. Technology does not just move on, practitioners need to actually find it practical beyond their next project that satisfies the shareholders.

I don’t think I have ever seen that explanation work on someone who is misinformed, but if I am proven wrong then the world will be a better place.

I phone banked for Harris but she was making our jobs harder by taking unpopular positions. What will you have me say to the voter who won’t vote for a Newsom presidency because they take AIPAC money? Because I was told to just move on and call the next person.

Not $200 but ended up buying a xerox phaser. When looking at cost per page it is one of the cheapest though.

Maybe I’m weird but I don’t like getting a scanner combo. Scanners break more easily than printers and after my Brother all-in-one had a busted scanner I’ve been going for portable scanners that run off USB power from the laptop. Canon lide has been a solid scanner for me.

Saying that you’re not worth the time for personal interactions but here’s a reason that’s okay is a platitude.

Additionally, AI will only be getting better,

It might get cheaper, but that doesn’t mean it’s doing a better job.

if the alternative is telling people that are struggling and have no other options that they have to tough it out

That’s just it, if you’re talking to someone who’s is struggling with this there is already a better option: showing empathy. I suspect our perceived lack of empathy is a reflection of how society treats people in general, we are just more honest about it and recognize it’s mostly platitudes.

I’ll be honest, I find the framing of the study offensive and I’m not sure if I have the words but I’ll try.

It’s less about this study comparing itself to no intervention instead, but the social & political context of AI being pushed as a way to make care giving more efficient while sacrificing quality.

half were assigned to use Noora for four weeks and half received no intervention.

If only they gave a control group an off-the-shelf social game like LA Noire or a D&D play group

I wonder how well this runs AutoCad and adobe

There’s a difference between seeing and perceiving. If you see AI slop and don’t see how it is different than something crafted by a human expert, that is a problem of one’s perception.

1. How Generative AI is framed by the industry is an affront to humanistic values.

https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/tech-ceos-dont-seem-to-realise-just-how-anti-human-their-ai-fanaticism-is-and-i-think-its-all-because-of-the-enlightenment/

2. It’s not even close to consciousness. For those of us who understand how these things work it’s almost an insult to make the comparison.

https://addxorrol.blogspot.com/2025/07/a-non-anthropomorphized-view-of-llms.html

3. All the other unethical considerations mentioned elsewhere by others (stealing art, water usage, politics).

There are about ~3000 billionaires. Or a billionaire every minute.