Fuck AI

There was one sentence in a documentary about mountain rescue. One of them said "There is this mindset that whatever you want to accomplish, you can achieve. However, the mountains do not care about what you want to accomplish."

We are currently in a trend that you can do everything you set your mind to, and, to be fair, people can do incredible things. But somewhere, there is a limit and I think the open ocean and mountains show you these limits quickly.

I remember a guy on Reddit saying that he was going to climb Mount Everest. Motherfucker admitted to being not being physically fit enough, but that he would get fit enough by doing some running. He also had no to little experience in climbing any mountains, and hadn't ever climbed any mountains above 7k meters. He then said he put money on a reserved non-refundable trip to everest in a year to motivate himself. Oh, and all the training and experience gaining was to be done in the year before he went.

Mind you Everest """""can""""" be easy if you hire like multiples guides and plenty of Sherpas to basically drag you up there. But the guy didn't even have that. The absolute confidence some people have when this mountain has taken many lives of much more experienced and veteran climbers already.

At least nobody is stupid enough to climb K2 with no experience. If you've climbed and summited K2, I'd respect you alot more than if you said you climbed and summited Everest by far.

I think you have to at least feedback to satnav companies for it to maybe get better - whether you call that blame or not I dunno. Experienced navigators will report back to mapping agencies with map corrections too.

What i really don't like about satnavs is that they behave like a navigator, so some people use them as a substitute for one, develop trust, and never learn to develop their own navigation skills.

I can see the same with AI. Not all people have critical thinking like that, some people do trust other people and what they say, and they trust words written like authoritative humans. I wish they wouldn't , but some do seem to. Plenty of times the assistive tool will have plenty of data and give a decent answer about many things, and so build up trust - especially when they communicate in a convincing human like manner.

You can say that's the users fault for being too trusting , being stupid ignorant, or naive, maybe it is, maybe it's nature / nurture / laziness. I just say it's part of the variety of the species some people think differently, some people are more skeptical, some are more trusting and so on. Trust is a useful thing for social animals to have in many cases - it'd be a nightmare to live without it - but its a vulnerability too.

These AI tools, much like marketing people and con-artists and scammers will end up developing and exploiting trust, by accident or by design or by malice, or just by imitation - and I'd rather they didn't. Of course that isn't going to stop them.

I'd just like most of these assistive tools to present their uncertainty better and flag risks better. They seem to just give less info or say less when they're thin on data, that can be a bit dangerous, if it is thin on data it should be saying "I'm out of my comfort zone here, this is a guess, you need to take charge" . Try to prompt people not to get lazy and to try to do some thinking and observation of their own.

I dunno, hopefully more people will become more skeptical and develop more critical thinking skills. But i'm skeptical of that.