Don't train #AI - Train people INSTEAD!

@barefootstache (Forgot to say + updated)

There are many things that are not needing #AI, so reversing my phrase doesn't work for that...

AI Training is not needed in many things that are actually worth keeping simple / human / even away from over-thinking / being too efficient etc as we live and enjoy things beyond AI and it's owner's directives and rational.

The main way I meant it (and wasn't clear in my quick phrase either I admit) was that involving and giving people activity is the main thing, so rather than giving it to AI as a kind of job-cutting / replacement of human (which it will be and IF Governments don't let people live more freely and let the AI and computers do more of the work) and will be hard for people to pay Rent to LandLoard's (another subject) and pay the Inflation going up and up...

So not AI as some financial-based cost-cutting tool aimed at outcomes for machines to replace people are not good (however good they are or efficient, humans are the priority) but people doing stuff to keep busy or interested in something less digital (non-electric-based, in fields, nature or whatever) without getting interfered with by what is and will be probably Americanised Technology is worth it's own weight in gold.

Just because a bot can do better or cheaper is not the point (as well as the point of money devaluing over time and we all having less and less ways to pay landlords... or only specific gruelling ways since those are more likely going to be jobs AI haven't got to yet or cut out.)

I think definitely there are less jobs or less diversity (could say more specialism which cascades out but quickly back again once established and perfected) looking at whole of what computing has done and AI will do while we can't even pay for it!!)
< I would ideally like a referencing to cite this other than my own guesstimates looking at patterns of Tech growing out but quickly cutting back to bare minimums >

And frankly with AI, half or all of it it can go (!) based on my somewhat supposition that what we had before was plenty or just enough since we were NOT interested in making it easier for humans anyway <----- MASSIVE POINT

Things haven't really change much for the better (or again could stay at the OK-but-they-will not let-us -go-free stage) and fucking things faster what we don't always want fucking up.

And after a whole heap of sub-subsidised energy bills to fund it (without many of us knowing) + BIG expectations from people who fall for things like #NFT as thing in fashion not too long ago, it's basically just cheating people "AI" reselling and outsourcing it to sweatshops like all the other industries doing manual the work first so "oh wow it's so easier and helps me in my great bourgeois Western Country".

I have a feeling people are sold, like moths to light, in STEM, similar to seeing a new motorbike, new car or new tractor - "it's like magic daddy!", but then over time you realise how dirty it is for all the magic and parts to come alive on each start (petrol and parts) and all the shit to be mined and come together to decorate around the smelly metal parts all the time..
All tyres etc... Faaaaak).

Perhaps cars are nicer staying inside the a cheap plastic picture frame most of us had as a child

If I'm not wrong:
#Lamborghini Countach,
#Porsche 911/935
#Ferrari F40

and thankfully I have no dreams of owning and even driving for more than 30mins as it's liable to all CRASH. 🚗

@freeschool

There is this tendency of taking technological luxuries as granted and then hypocritically saying that life would be so much better if xyz didn't exist. Only the minority of people are taking the leap to simplify their lives to a more slow pace way of living.

Considering that we are using one of these technological advances and then being frustrated that asynchronous communication is not happening fast enough is just ironic (hint hint ;P).

If a technology will be good or bad; only time will tell. Some technologies like NFT might have been just too early for release, similar to how the Google Glass was way ahead of its time.

Life without AI is still currently possible and most professions won't even need it to be performant. There is only a small fraction of professions that can be more performant using AI and most of them coincide in the STEM field.

Asking anyone in the STEM field who has started using AI to stop, is like going back a decade or two and asking them to stop use a search engine. Sure, one could have (back then) gone to the library, skim read through multiple books to find that one piece of information, but realistically speaking, why!?

Any technological shift can be daunting in the beginning, though as long as it creates more independence and variety in the long run, I welcome it over shunning it out.

It is true that each new technology carries its dark side with it and it should not be avoided and/or ignored.

The current two dark sides of AI that I see: 1. the amount of hardware and/or energy it costs to create AI models, and 2. assimilating AI with an all-knowing being or the only point of truth.

As long as one is informed with the faults of a technology, I don't see any reason why not to use it as long as it follows one's own moral compass.