I have now read so many “ChatGPT can do X job better than workers” papers, and I don’t think that I’ve ever found one that wasn’t at least flawed if not complete bunk once I went through the actual paper. I wrote about this a year ago, and I’ve since done the occasional follow-up on specific articles, including an official response to one of the most dishonest published papers that I’ve ever read that just itself passed peer review and is awaiting publication.

That academics are still “bench-marking” ChatGPT like this, a full year after I wrote that, is genuinely astounding to me on so many levels. I don’t even have anything left to say about it at this point. At least fewer of them are now purposefully designing their experiments to conclude that AI is awesome, and are coming to the obvious conclusion that ChatGPT cannot actually replace doctors, because of course it can’t.

This is my favorite one of these ChatGPT-as-doctor studies to date. It concluded that “GPT-4 ranked higher than the majority of physicians” on their exams. In reality, it actually can’t do the exam, so the researchers made a special, ChatGPT-friendly version of the exam for the sole purpose of concluding that ChatGPT is better than humans.

Because GPT models cannot interpret images, questions including imaging analysis, such as those related to ultrasound, electrocardiography, x-ray, magnetic resonance, computed tomography, and positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging, were excluded.

Just a bunch of serious doctors at serious hospitals showing their whole ass.

You can’t use ChatGPT to rebut an argument made by an expert who just wrote an entire book about the topic. He even explains in that article why this isn’t right, which the person you’re replying to quoted in their comment:

Take medieval windmills, a very transformative technology. It changed the organization of textile manufacturing, but especially agriculture. But you didn’t see much improvement in the conditions of the peasants. The windmills were controlled by landowners and churches. This narrow elite collected the gains. [emphasis added] They decided who could use the windmills. They killed off competition

This is what I mean when I say it’s going to end up being a circular argument.

Both the maxim gun and nuclear weapons had the biggest possible impacts possible on the economy. The maxim gun (and other war technologies) were hugely important in the viability of colonial administration. Nuclear weapons made the US one of two superpowers, which defined 20th century economic debate.

High fructose corn syrup has had a paramount impact on the entire American food system, probably the single most important part of an economy, from our agriculture to our food processing.

Plastics have so transformed our economy that we rely on it to get basically any physical good to the consumer, and the resulting trash now exists in every part of Earth, including our own bodies.

Nuclear weapons, the maxim gun, lead paint, lead gasoline, basically all lead-based products, thalidomide, CFCs, the electric chair, agent orange, asbestos, oxycodone, zyklon b, refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, disposable plastics, cigarettes, trans fats, …

I think @[email protected] is doing a great job of pointing to the actual substance of the argument, so I’ll leave that to them, but it’s actually really easy to come up with a long list of technological horrors that absolutely did not benefit most people but had huge impacts on our economy.

I do think “impact on our economy” is a pretty squishy phrase that’ll give you some wiggle room, but many of these nightmare technologies are inextricably and inseparably tied to the way we’ve structured our economy. Likewise, I think it’s easy to define “technology” in convenient ways for these kinds of arguments, but also ends up being circular pretty quick.

Welcome aboard!

The username, profile pic, and even that last paragraph are all taken from my site, where I write about things just like this, if you’re into that kind of thing :D

I’ve submitted apps to both stores many times.

I hesitate to use the word “rigorous,” but Apple’s process is certainly more involved, though I’d say it’s also bureaucratic and even arbitrary. Their primary concern is clearly maintaining their tight control over their users’ phones, which is an extremely lucrative monopoly. The play process, by comparison, is definitely lighter, though I don’t know if I’d be comfortable saying it’s less well vetted.

Philosophically, relying on either of the duopolies to screen the software we use for safety is ultimately a bad system, especially since they are creating this problem. Until very recently, the internet existed on websites. They are pushing us to use mobile apps because it is more lucrative for them. Apple takes something like a 20% cut of every single transaction that happens on any iPhone app. They don’t even allow non-apple-webkit browsers on iOS, meaning that the iphone’s chrome, firefox, etc. are actually different than Android’s. They do this specifically to hamstring mobile browser development.

They’ve managed to align the incentives here by offering tech companies more advertising revenue through the mobile platform. Basically, if you make a mobile app, Apple takes a huge cut each time your users pay you, but companies also get to spy on you more, meaning more lucrative advertising.

deleted by creator

Anyone who quotes Ashby et al gets an upvote from me! I’m always so excited to see cybernetic thinking in the wild.

is it even feasible to feed everyone if we stop meat production?

This is a difficult question to answer because since the green revolution in the mid 20th century, it seems we have absolutely no idea how to farm at scale without petrochemicals as fuel but also as inputs like fertilizer.

There do exist various studies on the organic carrying capacity if the earth, and those usually give numbers lower than the current human population. So, in a way, you could argue that the current situation is already infeasible, and this is where your question comes in. afaik there’s no organic farming without animals. Animals are an essential part of rotation and management schemes. Medieval peasants used the famous three field system, for example, as a long term sustainable rotation system.

To be clear, current CAFOs and meat consumption are an inefficient, unsustainable, petrochemical-fueled cruelty factory for which each and every one of us should feel shame, but if you want to imagine a solarpunk organic utopia, I’m not sure if it can be vegan.

Americans would rather start a digital surveillance program for boobs than fix our healthcare system.

Yet another technological antisolution. I’ve posted it before but it’s just a perennial concept.

This is how most of the tech industry thinks – looking at the existing process and trying to see which parts can be automated – but I’d argue that it’s actually not that great of a framework for finding good uses for technology. It’s an artifact of a VC-funded industry, which sees technology primarily as a way to save costs on labor.

In this particular case, I do think LLMs would be great at lowering labor costs associated with writing summaries, but you’d end up with a lot of cluttered, mediocre summaries clogging up your notes, just like all the other bloatware that most of our jobs now force us to deal with.

I think zoning is a related and secondary issue, but so long as the housing market is a market, and a few people have almost all the money, all zoning changes can do for housing prices is temporarily alleviate the problem. People with money are always looking for places to park their capital and collect rent. There’s no better vessel for that than real estate.

Obviously, we need to gut literally every aspect of American urban planning for a million other reasons too, but on this specific issue, I think it’s second order.

Exactly this, and it’s because capitalism uses computers backwards.

This is galaxies away from a good faith argument. You don’t seem like a dumb person, so you’re either engaging in bad faith for reasons all your own, or you’re so defensive about any criticism directed towards your work that you don’t realize how silly you’re being. Either way, I think this is the end of the line for us. Hope you have a pleasant rest of your Sunday. I unfortunately have to keep working for a bit but will be done soon. Cheers!

Your total unwillingness to critically engage with what you do for a living continues to say more about you than it does about Vonnegut.

Wonderfully put. Couldn’t agree more. It looks like you and I took away some very similar things and commented them in parallel.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with your interpretation of the ending. I think your interpretation of the whole book says a lot more about you than it does about Vonnegut or other people; it’s misanthropic, unempathetic, and patrician to the point of infantilizing others. I suspect that our views on what we as humans need to be fulfilled, what true freedom really is, and how we should treat each other are so far apart that there’s no bridging it. I hope you one day you reconsider. Until then, it’s been fun chatting. Good luck out there, friend.

Yeah this sounds like religion to me. Believe it is true and you will believe it is true.

Are you saying that reading and interpreting the work of one of the most beloved authors in the English language is “like religion?” If so, you could not be more wrong. Reading, interpreting, and reinterpreting the work of those who came before us is actually the very core of any academic pursuit. It’s the most basic description of what every single academic does with their time.

Also, you didnt address what I wrote, only the argument you think I was making

I did, actually. I could not have addressed it more directly. Let me do it again, but this time greatly expanding it.

I am making the world a better place. Freeing humans from degrading filthy boring work. You know what really irked me the most about that novel? The population lived in a freaken utopia and couldn’t say one good thing about it.

It’s been more than ten years since I read the book, but were Vonnegut a less subtle writer, that could be a literal line of dialog from one of the engineers in the book. I could imagine one of them defensively saying exactly that in an argument with the minister (whose name I forget).

You are frustrated that the engineers, through their ingenuity and hard work, have given the population a utopia, but the population is ungrateful. Your attitude is the same as the upper classes in that world. What you overlook is the world’s inherently violent class structure, which is revealed as the book goes on. The lower classes in the books are relegated to meaningless existences in sad, mass-produced housing, physically segregated from the wealthy in Homestead. They are denied an active participation in society, made obsolete by the upper classes (wealthy engineers, which iirc are implied to keep it in the family), who control every aspect of society. Again, it’s been a very long time since I read this so I’m hazy on the details, but in the book, some in the lower classes are trying to actively organize to challenge this class structure. They are brutally repressed. They are infiltrated by secret police, and when they rise up in protest, are met with state violence.

What you describe as utopia is actually a repressive regime that meets the subsistence needs of its lower classes in exchange for their unquestioning acceptance of the oligarchy’s control of society, which they justify to themselves and to the lower classes as a technocratic utopia (“freeing humans from degrading filthy boring work,” as you say), but which is also perfectly willing to subjugate the lower classes using deadly force if they dare to question the existing power structure.

How you describe the world is exactly how the regime chooses to portray itself, and how the upper classes, consisting of people like you and me, view the lower classes. In fact, viewing the lower classes as ungrateful for the upper classes’ generosity is actually a staple of upper class attitudes throughout much of human history. At the beginning of the book, since we’re only given an engineer’s perspective, this is an understandable reading of the world. If you read the entire book and still finished it thinking that same thing, you completely and utterly missed the point.

You and I make technology for companies, which are mostly owned by rich people. Vonnegut is asking us to interrogate what the implied philosophy behind our work is, even if we do not intend it to be so. We try to make people free from tedious work, but if you simply ask the people who we’re supposedly liberating from work, they hate us. This is not necessarily because they like the drudgery of their work, but because the wealthy people who employ us will simply lay them off, increasing corporate profits, but relegating the now-obsolete workers to the margins of society.

If the people you and I are “freeing … from degrading filthy boring work” are actually further degraded by this so-called freedom, are we really freeing them? Maybe we should question how our society is organized if the people you and I work to “free” actually hate us for it, or as they’d put it, hate us for taking away their jobs.