I didn't "trust" OpenAI with anything sensitive to begin with. I use ChatGPT quite heavily, including for research. But if things start pushing into the territory of something that I think has actual potential to be genuinely novel/interesting/publishable, I'm drawing the line. And even ChatGPT will tell you to do that. I was semi-joking with it one day and got into the issue of whether or not OpenAI employees read chat transcripts and it said something to the effect of "you can't really be sure, so it's probably best not to put anything truly sensitive into one of these chats" (paraphrased from memory).
Great. And you felt the need to scream this to the entire world? Look, if you don't like Generative AI, then don't use it. This isn't rocket science, and you're not making yourself look hip, cool, edgy, informed, suave, or anything else by yelling about it. Just go do you. Other people may do likewise. Others still might make different choices. And both cases are fine.
And never mind that the whole premise of this article is simply wrong. Look at the things GenAI systems are doing today and it's clear that they are more than just "parrots" stochastic or otherwise. Not even looking at the Navier-Stokes thing, but there are Youtube videos out there of PhD candidates in math who have tried out various models from a "can this help me with research level mathematics?" perspective multiple times, and quite often the answer is at least a qualified "yes". Does it really make sense to say that a stochastic approximation of "very average" content can be helpful in doing research level mathematics? I'm thinking "no".
My own anecdotal experience also suggests that whatever LLM's do, it amounts to more than being a mere parrot. ChatGPT was incredibly helpful to me over the weekend, for example, getting started on some neuromorphic computing stuff I wanted to do. It was amazingly helpful at debugging circuit problems, helping me setup some LXI/SCPI automation of my test equipment, doing literature reviews, yadda, yadda, yadda. Even better, unlike most human interlocutors I might want to interact with, it is fine with my weird "night owl" hours, happily debugging circuits at 2:00am, 3:00am, and on into the early morning hours. It never gets tired, never belittles me, tolerates my repeated questions, etc.
I get that some people are "anti-AI" for their own reasons, but I hope some of those people will at least stop and try to understand why some of us think modern GenAI systems are about the best thing since sliced bread. shrug
The problem (particularly on places like HN) are that if you are openly Anti-AI the people who disagree will flex their ability to downvote you (which contravenes HN's rules [1] [2])
There isn't just one specific "plan B", but I have a few things in mind for potential ways to make money if I lose access to my current career. Unfortunately reality collides with some of the possibilities... I am a certified Firefighter II and Firefighter Instructor II, with teaching qualifications for Firefighter I/II certification and LP Gas Firefighting. So you might think "become a firefighter" would be an option. But age (53) and health (heart issues) make that implausible. OTOH, I did a couple of years of welding in high-school. I could go take some welding classes at the local community college and probably get into that. But, again, age. Can my body hold up to doing physically demanding work for several more years at this point? IDK. Same for the possibility of becoming an electrician. I'm sure I could pass the classes and learn the stuff, but I don't know about having the physical wherewithal for something like that.
So I've been spending a lot of time on my existing hobby of doing electronic repairs and stuff, and have started investing in some camera equipment and stuff for filming videos for Youtube. I figure doing repairs and making videos might bring in a dollar or two. Not enough to live on probably, but a lot of things will factor into that: when / if the cyberpunk dystopia sets in, existing savings, the exact direction society evolves, etc. etc.
And in the future dystopia (or the current one as far as that goes) there will probably be ways to make money if you know how to repair / build / mod various bits of electronic stuff. And similar to @AppAttestationz, I've been messing with CNC stuff (bought a small desktop CNC mill a while back), 3D printing, etc. Not just because of worries about job loss mind you. These are all things I was already interested in. But now I'm thinking "in the future to come, along with repairing/building/modding electronics, there will probably be a place for people who can repair/fabricate/mod all sorts of physical items as well."
I've also been stocking up on chemistry books and spending some time studying chemistry (which was also a pre-existing, albeit lightly explored, interest anyway). I figure in a pinch there will be a market for various chemical substances and if one can synthesize them in a home lab... (yes this is all illegal AF. I'm considering the possibility of a society collapse to the extent that concerns like "legal" and "illegal" become moot).
I think it's a judgment call. Sort of like the way "derivative works" work vis-a-vis copyright law. If a work is "substantially transformative" or whatever the phrase is, then it's considered an original work. I'd say that if a work "substantially AI" then that should be probably be disclosed. But if you use AI but the work is still "substantially human written" overall then maybe it's less of an issue. And clearly there's a continuum here. I mean, if you use AI to fix a single misspelled word in a 5000 word essay, is there really any point in putting a disclosure statement? C'mon.
So for me, I'd just "play it by ear". Now as it happens, I basically don't use AI for written works (blog posts, essays, etc.) so it's kind of a non issue. The only time I do anything like that, I might embed a quote from an AI or a screenshot of a conversation with AI and comment on it. In those cases, the use of AI is very explicit though.
A tremendous amount of work. The annual AGI Conference[1][2] was just a couple of weeks ago, and was the most heavily attended one in the event's history (which goes back about 19 years, IIRC). It was four days of presentations / papers / talks on various aspects of AGI, mostly not focused on LLM's. Not to mention dozens of posters which didn't merit a dedicated talk during the main conference.
And then you have the Neuro-symbolic Summer School[3] that's been running for the past few years, and also just recently took place for 2026.
To anybody not looking carefully, it might be easy to assume that LLM's have "taken all of the oxygen out of the room" with regards to AI. But dig a little deeper and one will find that there's still a lot of work going on pursuing other paths.
I guess on balance this is a positive development. But I still have pretty much the opposite of the "warm fuzzies" in regards to Qualcomm. I have a very hard time imagining a world where I actively seek out any of their products, and might even actively avoid stuff they're involved with. I haven't (yet) quit using Arduino products, but I am now more interested in ESP32 and STM32 stuff.
I guess what I'm getting at is to say, it will take some time and work for Qualcomm to win me over as to seeing them as a trustworthy company that I would want to support. And I'm guessing I'm not alone in thinking that.
reply