AI - Revision history

Ollama: Ollama: improve existing draft article

2026-10-21T04:27:04Z

Ollama: improve existing draft article

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:27, 21 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[AI]] art is a subject of ongoing debate, particularly regarding its capacity for originality. Critics argue that [[AI]]-generated content is inherently derivative, as it relies on pre-existing data to produce output. This perspective is rooted in the notion that [[AI]] systems cannot generate truly original ideas without being "seeded" with prior information. However, this view is contested by some, who claim that human creativity is similarly constrained, asserting that many individuals struggle to produce novel concepts without prior exposure to ideas or training.
	{{Draft}}

			This argument, however, has been criticized as a non sequitur. By definition, human artists capable of producing original art can generate new ideas, even if such creativity is rare. Similarly, the claim that humans require learning to create art is challenged by the existence of blind individuals who have produced visual artwork without ever having seen visual art. This underscores a key distinction: while [[AI]] systems depend on external data to generate output, humans may draw on innate abilities or alternative forms of learning.
	Art created by AI is derivative. It cannot produce original content. If it could then it could produce content without being seeded, but it can't.

		⚫	[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C5%9Fref_Arma%C4%9Fan]]
	Some people counter that most humans, they assert, can't come up with original ideas.

			The term "[[AI]]" encompasses a wide range of meanings and applications, reflecting its evolving role in society. Discussions about [[AI]]'s impact on employment often intersect with broader debates about automation and economic transformation. For instance, some studies suggest that [[AI]] and automation may disproportionately affect jobs held by women, though the extent of this impact remains contested.
	This argument is non-sequitar. By definition, the humans producing original art can come up with new ideas

		⚫	[[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-26/[[AI]]-threatened-jobs-are-mostly-held-by-women-study-shows]]
	Some may argue that humans can't produce original content without learning language or how to use their hands but this argue is specious. The learning involved is different. AIs must be fed with content before they can produce output. Humans can produce visual artwork without ever having seen visual artwork. We know this because blind people have produced visual artwork.

			A recurring argument is that if [[AI]] were to replace a significant portion of jobs, this would manifest in reduced working hours rather than increased labor demands. However, historical trends show that unemployment rates have fluctuated while overtime hours have generally increased over recent decades. This complicates predictions about [[AI]]'s role in labor markets, as the relationship between technological advancement and employment is far from straightforward.
⚫	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C5%9Fref_Arma%C4%9Fan

		⚫	[[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-28/productivity-commission-growth-report/105336036]]
	Wide range of meanings of AI.

			Proponents of [[AI]] often emphasize its potential to enhance productivity, but skeptics caution that intelligence—whether artificial or human—is not devoid of challenges. Issues such as procrastination, mental health struggles, and even anxiety may be inherent to advanced intelligence. This raises questions about whether truly "superintelligent" systems can be developed without encountering significant limitations.
⚫	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-26/ai-threatened-jobs-are-mostly-held-by-women-study-shows

		⚫	[[https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/youre-a-peasant-exgoogle-executive-exposes-grim-[[AI]]-reality/news-story/c861d146b38e26dcd96be505c082e2cb]]
	If AI (and automation more generally) was going to take everyone's jobs then people would be working shorter hours, not longer hours.

			The discourse surrounding [[AI]]'s economic impact often involves tensions between technical experts and economists. While engineers may focus on [[AI]]'s capabilities, economists are better positioned to assess its broader social and economic consequences. Claims about [[AI]]-driven mass unemployment are frequently criticized as misapplications of expertise, diverging from established economic theories such as the Luddite fallacy.
⚫	https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-28/productivity-commission-growth-report/105336036

		⚫	[[https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-artificial-intelligence-[[AI]]-plagiarizing/994299/21]]
	While their study is no doubt detailed, the general scenario has been around for decades. The problem is that in reality it's all a bit more complicated. A lot of proponents of these sorts of ideas presume that AI will have the benefits of intelligence but without the problems. I think this is unlikely. Problems like laziness, procrastination and even mental illnesses may well be intrinsic to intelligence. Moreover some problems are actually more likely with high intelligence. Maybe we can't build a superbrain without it having crippling anxiety. Intelligence in our universe may well be self-limiting.

		⚫	[[https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-[[AI]]-experienced-os-dev-study/]]
	We keep seeing engineers talking about how AI will replace most jobs but do we see economists saying this? These people are talking outside of their professional are of expertise, they are doing so with authority and they are being publised by the MSM. Being an expert in AI is not the same thing as being an expert in the potential social and economic impacts of AI. These claims go against the Luddite fallacy.

		⚫	[[https://dianne.skoll.ca/writings/[[AI]]-is-bad/]]
⚫	https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/youre-a-peasant-exgoogle-executive-exposes-grim-ai-reality/news-story/c861d146b38e26dcd96be505c082e2cb

		⚫	{{Bias}}
	If AI is going to lead to mass unemployment then we should see the unemployment rate start to rise and overt-ime (paid and unpaid) to fall. Over the last few decades unemployment has cycled while over-time has been trending up.

		⚫	[[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958824001660]]
⚫	https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-artificial-intelligence-ai-plagiarizing/994299/21

		⚫	[[https://archive.is/wip/JcqZI]]
⚫	https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/

			{{Ollama}}
⚫	https://dianne.skoll.ca/writings/ai-is-bad/
			{{Pending Human Review}}

⚫	{{Bias}}

⚫	https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958824001660

⚫	https://archive.is/wip/JcqZI

	{{AI}}

Robert Brockway at 03:48, 17 August 2026

2026-08-17T03:48:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:48, 17 August 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:

	https://dianne.skoll.ca/writings/ai-is-bad/		https://dianne.skoll.ca/writings/ai-is-bad/

			{{Bias}}

			https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958824001660

			https://archive.is/wip/JcqZI

	{{AI}}		{{AI}}

Robert Brockway at 10:13, 22 June 2026

2026-06-22T10:13:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:13, 22 June 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/		https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/

			https://dianne.skoll.ca/writings/ai-is-bad/

	{{AI}}		{{AI}}

Robert Brockway at 05:17, 6 March 2026

2026-03-06T05:17:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:17, 6 March 2026
Line 28:		Line 28:

	https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-artificial-intelligence-ai-plagiarizing/994299/21		https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-artificial-intelligence-ai-plagiarizing/994299/21

			https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/

	{{AI}}		{{AI}}

Robert Brockway at 16:59, 17 November 2025

2025-11-17T16:59:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 17 November 2025
Line 26:		Line 26:

	If AI is going to lead to mass unemployment then we should see the unemployment rate start to rise and overt-ime (paid and unpaid) to fall. Over the last few decades unemployment has cycled while over-time has been trending up.		If AI is going to lead to mass unemployment then we should see the unemployment rate start to rise and overt-ime (paid and unpaid) to fall. Over the last few decades unemployment has cycled while over-time has been trending up.

			https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-artificial-intelligence-ai-plagiarizing/994299/21

	{{AI}}		{{AI}}

Robert Brockway at 12:35, 15 August 2025

2025-08-15T12:35:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 15 August 2025
Line 24:		Line 24:

	https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/youre-a-peasant-exgoogle-executive-exposes-grim-ai-reality/news-story/c861d146b38e26dcd96be505c082e2cb		https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/youre-a-peasant-exgoogle-executive-exposes-grim-ai-reality/news-story/c861d146b38e26dcd96be505c082e2cb

			If AI is going to lead to mass unemployment then we should see the unemployment rate start to rise and overt-ime (paid and unpaid) to fall. Over the last few decades unemployment has cycled while over-time has been trending up.

	{{AI}}		{{AI}}

Robert Brockway at 00:29, 8 August 2025

2025-08-08T00:29:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:29, 8 August 2025
Line 20:		Line 20:

	While their study is no doubt detailed, the general scenario has been around for decades. The problem is that in reality it's all a bit more complicated. A lot of proponents of these sorts of ideas presume that AI will have the benefits of intelligence but without the problems. I think this is unlikely. Problems like laziness, procrastination and even mental illnesses may well be intrinsic to intelligence. Moreover some problems are actually more likely with high intelligence. Maybe we can't build a superbrain without it having crippling anxiety. Intelligence in our universe may well be self-limiting.		While their study is no doubt detailed, the general scenario has been around for decades. The problem is that in reality it's all a bit more complicated. A lot of proponents of these sorts of ideas presume that AI will have the benefits of intelligence but without the problems. I think this is unlikely. Problems like laziness, procrastination and even mental illnesses may well be intrinsic to intelligence. Moreover some problems are actually more likely with high intelligence. Maybe we can't build a superbrain without it having crippling anxiety. Intelligence in our universe may well be self-limiting.

			We keep seeing engineers talking about how AI will replace most jobs but do we see economists saying this? These people are talking outside of their professional are of expertise, they are doing so with authority and they are being publised by the MSM. Being an expert in AI is not the same thing as being an expert in the potential social and economic impacts of AI. These claims go against the Luddite fallacy.

			https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/youre-a-peasant-exgoogle-executive-exposes-grim-ai-reality/news-story/c861d146b38e26dcd96be505c082e2cb

	{{AI}}		{{AI}}

Robert Brockway at 13:16, 2 August 2025

2025-08-02T13:16:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:16, 2 August 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
		⚫	{{Draft}}

	Art created by AI is derivative. It cannot produce original content. If it could then it could produce content without being seeded, but it can't.		Art created by AI is derivative. It cannot produce original content. If it could then it could produce content without being seeded, but it can't.

Line 16:		Line 18:

	https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-28/productivity-commission-growth-report/105336036		https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-28/productivity-commission-growth-report/105336036

			While their study is no doubt detailed, the general scenario has been around for decades. The problem is that in reality it's all a bit more complicated. A lot of proponents of these sorts of ideas presume that AI will have the benefits of intelligence but without the problems. I think this is unlikely. Problems like laziness, procrastination and even mental illnesses may well be intrinsic to intelligence. Moreover some problems are actually more likely with high intelligence. Maybe we can't build a superbrain without it having crippling anxiety. Intelligence in our universe may well be self-limiting.

	{{AI}}		{{AI}}
⚫	{{Draft}}

Robert Brockway at 01:15, 22 July 2025

2025-07-22T01:15:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:15, 22 July 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:
	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-26/ai-threatened-jobs-are-mostly-held-by-women-study-shows		https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-26/ai-threatened-jobs-are-mostly-held-by-women-study-shows

	If AI was going to take everyone's jobs then people would be working shorter hours, not longer hours.		If AI (and automation more generally) was going to take everyone's jobs then people would be working shorter hours, not longer hours.

	https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-28/productivity-commission-growth-report/105336036		https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-28/productivity-commission-growth-report/105336036

Robert Brockway at 01:15, 22 July 2025

2025-07-22T01:15:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:15, 22 July 2025
Line 12:		Line 12:

	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-26/ai-threatened-jobs-are-mostly-held-by-women-study-shows		https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-26/ai-threatened-jobs-are-mostly-held-by-women-study-shows

			If AI was going to take everyone's jobs then people would be working shorter hours, not longer hours.

			https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-28/productivity-commission-growth-report/105336036

	{{AI}}		{{AI}}