"Productivity" is not. It's only good for fake productivity. The consumers of the product will almost always be better off with you disclosing what the LLM did, and what you did.

Someone's actual writing (or talking) is a rich stream of information about who they are, their motives, their preferences, modes of persuasion, and so much more. Undetectable LLM writing essentially allows someone to assume another person's identity. That is not good for anyone except the person trying to pull off a "scam" of some sort, in the broadest sense of that term. It's bad for everyone else, and for society at large.

I would rate them as about 5% true and 95% false, as explanation of the past and prediction of the future.

The satisfaction of learning to do something difficult isn't going away, and the social status associated with it won't either.

In the case of Challenger, I think it's pretty clear this was the "root cause":

> According to testimony by Kilminster and Boisjoly, Mason finally turned to Bob Lund and said, "Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat." Joe Kilminster wrote out the new recommendation and went back on line with the teleconference.

> The new recommendation stated that the cold was still a safety concern, but their people had found that the original data was indeed inconclusive and their "engineering assessment" was that launch was recommended, even though the engineers had no part in writing the new recommendation and refused to sign it.

-- https://onlineethics.virginia.edu/cases/engineering-ethics-c...

If you want to take the "system" view here, as is often the case, it is the organizational power structure and incentives therein that comprise the dangerous system. You had engineering experts easily predicting the disaster, but they had no decision making power. That was the problem. But if you set up an organization like that, where the egos of "get it done" managers are allowed to gamble with other people's lives to win their own accolades, the system is doomed from the start.

My only point was I think it's possible to do. I personally think it's pretty clear. And there's nothing special about AI. In rural places, you could replace it with "access to books" or "access to a good tutor" and so on.

I also think you'd see the same effect with "motivation" (if you could test it), with performance on standardized tests, and with grades. AI will boost the better (by these metrics) students more.

In one sense yes, but in another sense... humans are just so much alike. You can a learn a ton from your elders' common mistakes. Especially the ones where there's broad agreement. You're probably not an exception.

To use your dog metaphor (which I like), would you tell a dog looking for advice (if you could magically communicate with it) to just present and focus on the moment and he'll know what to do. Nah, we know a dog needs lots of walks, to be around other dogs, to eat the right foods, and so on.

The two approaches aren't mutually exclusive, but the practical one is... practical.

I'm confident it's an amplifier for people who know how learning works and already do a lot of it, successfully. However the level of "learning fluency" I'm talking about isn't reached for many until late college or grad school, and sometimes not at all. So I'm not surprised by the quoted results for 12-18 year olds.

I said OS level. It's something I should easily be able to do via the OS capabilities that would work for rust, npm, etc.

I would use it not only for rust builds but for nearly every app on my computer.

Many things I run I want to limit to r/w a single dir, and to have to request permission to make network calls.

It's corporate bullshit not because I don't believe they can grow the pie, but because that's not their motivation.

In fact, a nice formula for coming up with your corporate mission statement would be:

1. Ignore your company's ground-truth financial incentives

2. Find a positive 2nd order effect E (or a plausible one) that you don't really care about, but maybe you genuinely think is nice

3. Claim your "passion for E" is what drove you to start your company, and keeps you working, because, of course, all great companies must have a "deeper purpose"

I was totally confused by what connected the two companies until I realized "tokens" are basically a nascent, and rapidly growing, "currency".

Also corporate speak. Their mission is take their cut of the Internet's GDP. Nothing against them, they provide real value for that cut. But that's what the actual mission is.

To be clear, it's gross, but they are doing it just enough that their convenience and average sufficient product quality keeps me using them. I'd guess they do a lot of research to keep that balance where it is.