AI is far better at security than the majority of security professionals. It is a net positive.
People constantly compare AI to this very rare expert human rather than the reality of who is already employed. Experts like you are a major culprit of this. And it puts you at odds with yourself to both admit the industry is full of subpar workers and then lament that they will be replaced with workers that are better, but still worse than you.
What is wrong with someone to make them think in this manner? Is it just a kneejerk response with little thought? Is it ego? Is it a coping mechanism? I find it very strange and interesting and annoying.
As he said, its just a learning curve and you are behind on it. Dont use AI mode use perplexity or gpt for your search. its far superior to traditional search, just slower. The quality of your prompt also matters. Im pretty annoyed by those like you who hide and mask their ignorance behind anything they can grasp to cover themselves. It's transparent to most but yourself. Ignorance i could forgive, but not the dishonesty.
Sure, if it bleeds it leads. But I've been a news consumer since the 1980s and a reader of the NYT almost as long as it's had a web site. It is my strong impression that its headlines have gotten noticeably worse. The main one that annoys me, and I don't actually see an example of it on the main page right now, is the teaser headline that forces you to click through to know what the article is even about[^1].
Edit: here's an example. Headline on the front page is "A Chaotic, Confusing Campaign: Here’s Who Should Be the Next Governor of California". Makes it sound like you're clicking through to an endorsement, right? Nope, the article is actually a voter guide. It's a completely misleading headline.
[^1]: You can often inspect the URL to see the original descriptive headline before the clickbaiters got to it which makes it even more annoying.
If you want to be reductive then everything is already the same. Music is 99% the same chords, art is 99% the same colors, etc... Or you can argue from good faith and actually learn or teach.
Your argument can be used to discredit all arguments, including itself. Because your argument is made only of the same letters as all others (let's stay in English, without losing generality), it is the same as all others, and thus it has no discernible point.
Note that it's you who introduced this reduction, not the GP.
>I love music, but it is the feeling, experience, and emotion of the creator that comes through that I enjoy.
This belief is not true and I will fight to the bedrock of psychology and nature against this until the ridiculous sentiment is eradicated from humanity's lexicon.
There are fundamental aspects to our perception, across all senses, that lie underneath human creation. You enjoy the warmth of the sun, the cool of a breeze, the sound of a running stream, the majesty of mountains and oceans, the power of storms. These all evoke the sense and appreciation of beauty while being completely removed from a creator. Believing that you care about the creator, and that it fundamentally underpins your enjoyment of sense perception is shallow thinking.
>You enjoy the warmth of the sun, the cool of a breeze, the sound of a running stream, the majesty of mountains and oceans, the power of storms. These all evoke the sense and appreciation of beauty while being completely removed from a creator.
I don't think this is true. I think that if you found out you were in a simulation and that all these things were just electrical pulses being sent to your brain in a jar it would vastly change your perception of the world. And I think that's a good analogy for AI
How will it change anything? Simulation is a pointless term that has no meaning here. It is completely real to you. In fact I don't even know whats the difference between a so called "real" universe and a "boltzmann" brain. This weird "analogy" seems to ignore information itself needs a certain amount of energy/matter/space, I doubt simulating our universe can be done with anything less than the universal size of complexity.
> These all evoke the sense and appreciation of beauty while being completely removed from a creator.
Why is it so black and white? There are things like warmth of the sun, that I enjoy without the creator.
There are also art and music that I didn't appreciate at first before knowing the story and the creator behind them. Then I understood where the piece of art came from and what were the emotions behind it when creating it.
People constantly compare AI to this very rare expert human rather than the reality of who is already employed. Experts like you are a major culprit of this. And it puts you at odds with yourself to both admit the industry is full of subpar workers and then lament that they will be replaced with workers that are better, but still worse than you.
What is wrong with someone to make them think in this manner? Is it just a kneejerk response with little thought? Is it ego? Is it a coping mechanism? I find it very strange and interesting and annoying.
reply