this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2026
49 points (76.9% liked)

Technology

84171 readers
2513 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 129 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (27 children)

“The raw output of ChatGPT’s proof was actually quite poor. So it required an expert to kind of sift through and actually understand what it was trying to say,” Lichtman says. But now he and Tao have shortened the proof so that it better distills the LLM’s key insight.

This tracks with what I have seen regarding AI. It looks superficially awesome, but when you start to analyze its output it has a lot of holes that require someone trained in the art to fix. You know, someone with years of experience, and who got that experience without the benefit of AI shortcuts.

What happens 10 or 15 years from now, when all the current crop of experts are retired and all the experts who could have curated the AI output had to spend all that time as baristas instead because the AI took all of their entry level jobs?

[–] soratoyuki@piefed.social 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Not just that the next generation of experts will hypothetically be employed as baristas, but I don't think people take the risk of deskilling enough. The next generation of would-be experts won't be as good at whatever because they've learned to rely on AI. We risk effectively transferring valuable skills from humans to Musk- or Altman-owned chatbots. That should horrify everyone.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, maybe not literally baristas. But my point is that the next generation of experts simply will not exist, because all the entry level jobs are evaporating. All of them. Just ask any group of college graduates with a tech degree about how hard the job market is right now.

[–] soratoyuki@piefed.social 2 points 10 hours ago

Not disagreeing at all. The mass unemployment of a bunch of industries is terrible. I'm just saying the other side of the coin is also terrible, that we're heading towards a world where humans have lost the ability to perform important skills to (potentially hostile) chatbots (owned by billionaires) that we won't be able to properly manage or oversee. That's the flip side of most 'positive' AI stories: 'AI is better at detecting early breast cancer... And the doctors that use AI have gotten worse because of it.'

load more comments (25 replies)