They're laypeople.
FaceDeer
joined 8 months ago
It's "believe the technology is as capable as we imagined it was promised to be."
The experts never promised Star Trek AI.
Back when you were contributing that content were you expecting to get paid?
Unfortunately the Dark Forest thing is super popular right now, so it gets the clicks.
Which is rather annoying, IMO, because as Fermi Paradox solutions go it's riddled with holes and implausibilities. But it's scary, and so people latch on to it easily.
If your concern is that we're "not getting anything" in exchange for the training data AI trainers have gleaned from your postings, then those open-source AIs are what you should be taking a look at. IMO they're well worth the trade.
No, it's really not the reason copyright exists. Granting a profit to authors and artists is just a means to an end. The actual purpose is to enrich the public domain. Or "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", as the US Constitution puts it.
No, the original question is "can AI therapists do better than the real thing?" And yes, they can do better at specific things. That doesn't make them a replacement, though.
Bandaids aren't much use for a bullet wound, but bandaids are still good to have and useful in other situations. You wouldn't use a tourinquet for a papercut.
Bit of a catch-22 though, isn't it? You want people to get better at doing those things, but they have to do those things in the first place to reach the people that help them get better at it.
I see nothing wrong with having AI chatbots in addition to traditional therapists. As with many AI applications they're at their best when they're helping professionals to get more done.
It's important to note that "doing well financially" isn't just revenue and user count, it's also expenditures. If Twitter has managed to cut costs by more than whatever its income has dropped by then that could well be a good outcome for it, I've heard it wasn't profitable when Musk took it over.
It's kind of ironic how big companies are frequently criticized for fixating on "endless growth" and "line goes up", and then when a company or organization sheds that it also looks bad.