YouTube, Free education, and worth every penny.

[Mark Hennebury]

So currently i am learning how to build racecar engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOj1vviIa6A

[Bill Howatt]

Well, it's in, isn't it? :)

[Mark Hennebury]

Next up is the woodworking teacher.

516737


https://twitter.com/i/status/1762591183862399070

[Edward Weber]

So currently i am learning how to build racecar engines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOj1vviIa6A

Someone get that guy a dead-blow mallet


... and hit him with it.

I have a feeling it might be a short race if that's how the whole car is built.

[Warren Lake]

at least he wasnt wearing gloves :)

[Jerry Bruette]

Guys an amateur. Shouldn't have taken anymore than three hits with a hammer that big.:eek:

[Kevin Jenness]

Ow! Those are painful just to watch.

[Cameron Wood]

I couldn't find it, but there was one like this- torch on in flip flops. Said he would teach a special technique, but he burned his foot and never got to the special technique.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZZlY76CMw4


I also can't forget the one where a guy demonstrating the proper way to use a jointer came millimeters from shortening five fingers by wrapping them around the end of the board he was jointing.

[Dave Zellers]

Next up is the woodworking teacher.

516737


https://twitter.com/i/status/1762591183862399070

The REAL Stumpy Nubs.

[Patty Hann]

Next up is the woodworking teacher.

516737


https://twitter.com/i/status/1762591183862399070
Just seeing the picture (I didn't watch the vid) makes me almost physically sick (because my imagination kicks into overdrive) :-p

[John C Cox]

I have watched some bona-fide pro's do some crazy stuff. Remember that most people on The Tube are amateurs,

It is true that you don't always get what you pay for... But you don't often get things you don't pay for.

Once upon a time, I was contemplating doing my own tile work. 100% of the free advice I got at the home store and about 75% of what I found online was simply wrong. I eventually found good information, but that only reinforced my impression that hiring a pro was time and money ahead.

[Cameron Wood]

I have watched some bona-fide pro's do some crazy stuff. Remember that most people on The Tube are amateurs,

It is true that you don't always get what you pay for... But you don't often get things you don't pay for.

Once upon a time, I was contemplating doing my own tile work. 100% of the free advice I got at the home store and about 75% of what I found online was simply wrong. I eventually found good information, but that only reinforced my impression that hiring a pro was time and money ahead.


Maybe, but I've seen pros do wrong things plenty of times (and I are one).

[Mark Hennebury]

I have had a lot of machine parts messed up at machine shops, that's why i bought a lathe, surface grinder, milling machine etc, I wish that I could do my own dental work and surgery, so I just don't trust "professionals" that much. i generally expect stuff to get screwed up and occasionally am surprised when it's not. I have been told to leave several machine shops, for pointing out that they screwed up my part.

last week I received a piece of 60mm ID honed stainless steel hydraulic cylinder tube, that I ordered from a company that is 5 hours from me, I ordered it before Christmas. it was supposed to be 178mm long, the piece that arrived was 128mm long, close but no cigar. Par for the course.
The stainless steel is on the left and is to replace the brass one on the right.

516743

[Edward Weber]

I have watched some bona-fide pro's do some crazy stuff. Remember that most people on The Tube are amateurs,



WHAT!
They're on the internet, thay have a YouTube channel, How can you say they're not pros?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN7G7G3gMeg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93AoRgbz2cY

They are indeed strange times we live in.

[Lee Schierer]

Just seeing the picture (I didn't watch the vid) makes me almost physically sick (because my imagination kicks into overdrive) :-p

I did watch the video and he was making that cut free hand. He had his left hand much too close to the blade. That cut would have been much safer and more accurately done using a miter gauge or a crosscut sled. Not something you should do the way he is demonstrating.

[Pat Germain]

YouTube is like most other things; 90% is crap. But the other 10% is very good and very useful.

[mike stenson]

Just wait til AI gets involved. These will seem like the golden days of instruction :rolleyes:

[Patty Hann]

Just wait til AI gets involved. These will seem like the golden days of instruction :rolleyes:

^^^^ THIS ^^^^ (and it's no joke)

[Pat Germain]

Just wait til AI gets involved. These will seem like the golden days of instruction :rolleyes:

Don't be fooled by the hype. AI is mostly just another big, overblown nothing burger.

[mike stenson]

Don't be fooled by the hype. AI is mostly just another big, overblown nothing burger.

I've been in this industry for about 30 years now. I actually see code that's been AI generated regularly enough. I'll also point out that companies are spending billions on this. It's the current big fad.

Now if agile will just die...

[Patty Hann]

Don't be fooled by the hype. AI is mostly just another big, overblown nothing burger.

"He said, as he whistled past the graveyard." ;)

[Pat Germain]

"He said, as he whistled past the graveyard." ;)

Ha-ha! :)

I am far from the only person skeptical of AI. My favorite take on the subject comes from a video by Adam Conover. He's the guy from the "Adam Ruins Everything" show. He rubs some people the wrong way, but I actually like him. He's very good at cutting through layers of BS and getting to the real story. And oh yeah, there is just so much BS around AI. Sure, it has much potential, but contrary to all the hyperbole, it's not going to revolutionize anything any time soon.

Consider robotics technology. It has evolved slowly over the decades to the point where very sophisticated, laser guided robots now do to a lot of the assembly on automotive assembly lines. Decades ago people were predicting robots taking over the world and revolutionizing society overnight. And just like AI, people were predicting dystopian doom. Nope.

Self-driving cars? Same story. Sure they exist. And, despite multiple dead pedestrians, testing is still going on in Phoenix and San Francisco. But there are still many, many problems and many, many challenges. The big revolution everyone was predicting a few years ago didn't happen and it likely won't happen in our lifetimes.

[Patty Hann]

Ha-ha! :)

I am far from the only person skeptical of AI. My favorite take on the subject comes from a video by Adam Conover. He's the guy from the "Adam Ruins Everything" show. He rubs some people the wrong way, but I actually like him. He's very good at cutting through layers of BS and getting to the real story. And oh yeah, there is just so much BS around AI. Sure, it has much potential, but contrary to all the hyperbole, it's not going to revolutionize anything any time soon.

Consider robotics technology. It has evolved slowly over the decades to the point where very sophisticated, laser guided robots now do to a lot of the assembly on automotive assembly lines. Decades ago people were predicting robots taking over the world and revolutionizing society overnight. And just like AI, people were predicting dystopian doom. Nope.

Self-driving cars? Same story. Sure they exist. And, despite multiple dead pedestrians, testing is still going on in Phoenix and San Francisco. But there are still many, many problems and many, many challenges. The big revolution everyone was predicting a few years ago didn't happen and it likely won't happen in our lifetimes.

Ah, there I agree with you: "not in our lifetime".
Maybe at the very end of mine if my genes stay true to "type" ("type" being the longevity of the women on both sides of my family)

[Bill Howatt]

I don't think AI will sweep the world real soon but and it's a big but, AI is a lot different from robotics which are made by humans to do a task over and over. AI has the ability to use the knowledge it has learned to learn and understand more which could result in exponential growth rather than linear.

[Pat Germain]

I don't think AI will sweep the world real soon but and it's a big but, AI is a lot different from robotics which are made by humans to do a task over and over. AI has the ability to use the knowledge it has learned to learn and understand more which could result in exponential growth rather than linear.

Currently most of what AI does is scrape the Internet for content and mash it together into images or poorly written articles. I'm sure it will get better.

[mike stenson]

Currently most of what AI does is scrape the Internet for content and mash it together into images or poorly written articles. I'm sure it will get better.

It'll hit the poorly scripted video stage eventually. I am sure.

Or not. maybe we'll have figured out that left to it's own devices, it tends to produce junk (go look at AI generated images that include fingers, as a very brief current example)


The biggest thing, currently, is trying to use AI to replace customer service representatives. At least at the first level of contact.. for now.

[Keegan Shields]

AI is already replacing people. While there is certainly hype, it is having a real world impact. A team of low level marketing professionals who used to write content are now reduced to one person. That person now proof reads AI generated content. That’s just one example.

Add to that list customer facing service representatives, technical sales reps of various types, and general sales people. AI models are being implemented to replace/reduce headcount across industries. It’s what offshoring was a few decades ago, but wider in scope.

I agree that a lot of the sensational stuff is hype. But it has real applications for companies looking to reduce their headcount.

[Mark Hennebury]

Fingers and more, the longer you look the weirder it gets.............
516866

[Edward Weber]

AI is already replacing people. While there is certainly hype, it is having a real world impact. A team of low level marketing professionals who used to write content are now reduced to one person. That person now proof reads AI generated content. That’s just one example.

Add to that list customer facing service representatives, technical sales reps of various types, and general sales people. AI models are being implemented to replace/reduce headcount across industries. It’s what offshoring was a few decades ago, but wider in scope.

I agree that a lot of the sensational stuff is hype. But it has real applications for companies looking to reduce their headcount.

And as soon as that person proof reads/corrects enough AI generated content, they'll be gone too

Is anything consumer facing getting better, I would argue no, at least not yet.
I have no problem with machine learning computing mathematical equations that would take humans years and running countless scenarios 24/7 to solve problems but the absolute rush to eliminate humans is just a blatant money grab. Where can we cut corners and keep more profit, I know those pesky employees, who needs them.

https://www.makeuseof.com/reasons-artificial-intelligence-cant-replace-humans/

[Pat Germain]

AI is already replacing people. While there is certainly hype, it is having a real world impact. A team of low level marketing professionals who used to write content are now reduced to one person. That person now proof reads AI generated content. That’s just one example.

Add to that list customer facing service representatives, technical sales reps of various types, and general sales people. AI models are being implemented to replace/reduce headcount across industries. It’s what offshoring was a few decades ago, but wider in scope.

I agree that a lot of the sensational stuff is hype. But it has real applications for companies looking to reduce their headcount.

I'm not surprised by this because "management" often has no appreciation for quality. "Why pay people when I can just get AI to crank out content? OK. I'll keep on one person to proofread."

Years ago clip art replaced a lot of graphic artists. But that doesn't mean clip art could do the same thing as graphic artists.

Recently Sports Illustrated got into some hot water for printing AI generated articles. If you read the articles, they make no sense.

[Mel Fulks]

I love those ancient Grand Mummies. They scared away the thieves.

[Keegan Shields]

Yep totally agree. It’s called “lowering the cost of sale” and unfortunately, companies don’t price in the value of quality customer service, knowledgeable sales people, and other hard-to-quantify aspects.

[Bill Dufour]

I think that today's AI could write a Hallmark movie plot just like all the rest of them. Single Mom or Dad from the big city goes back to the country and mets boy/girl form the slower country life and realizes big city life is not that great. They fall in love and kiss with one minute left to go. Finis.
BillD

[Patty Hann]

I'm on a Tolkien Forum ... discussions range all over the world of Tolkien, including the various dramatizations done over the last 70 years , both TV and the earlier radio presentations.
Those dramatizations can be very polarizing.

So a new member chimes in about the Amazon Rings of Power series (RoP)...(And RoP is incredibly polarizing... most people either love it or hate ... I'm in the "hate it" camp FWIW)
And he has a fairly long post about the pros and cons of RoP.
I read it and re-read it, and finally decide: He's not really saying anything, he's just sitting on the fence.
And more than that the whole thing sounded artificial.

So I PM a mod and ask him if they've vetted the new member because he sounds like AI.
Turns out the person is real (flesh and blood) but he admitted (only when asked point blank) that his contribution to the discussion was AI generated.
He gave the AI the parameters of the discussion and after getting an answer, re-arranged some words or sentences, then posted it. He said he thought it was OK to do that.
The mods informed him that he needs to note at the outset of a post if it is AI generated, but then gently suggested to him that it would be much better to post something entirely of his own thinking.

My own experience (and this was just another instance of it) is that an AI "composition" is still pretty easy to spot.
I wonder how long before it gets better at "creative writing"...

[Keegan Shields]

I'm on a Tolkien Forum ... discussions range all over the world of Tolkien, including the various dramatizations done over the last 70 years , both TV and the earlier radio presentations.
Those dramatizations can be very polarizing.

So a new member chimes in about the Amazon Rings of Power series (RoP)...(And RoP is incredibly polarizing... most people either love it or hate ... I'm in the "hate it" camp FWIW)
And he has a fairly long post about the pros and cons of RoP.
I read it and re-read it, and finally decide: He's not really saying anything, he's just sitting on the fence.
And more than that the whole thing sounded artificial.

So I PM a mod and ask him if they've vetted the new member because he sounds like AI.
Turns out the person is real (flesh and blood) but he admitted (only when asked point blank) that his contribution to the discussion was AI generated.
He gave the AI the parameters of the discussion and after getting an answer, re-arranged some words or sentences, then posted it. He said he thought it was OK to do that.
The mods informed him that he needs to note at the outset of a post if it is AI generated, but then gently suggested to him that it would be much better to post something entirely of his own thinking.

My own experience (and this was just another instance of it) is that an AI "composition" is still pretty easy to spot.
I wonder how long before it gets better at "creative writing"...

Some of it is pretty bad... but I think spotting AI generated content is like spotting bad plastic surgery. You never notice the well done stuff. In fact, you've probably already read a bunch of AI generated product descriptions on various websites.

ChatGPT is a generalist - the really interesting generative AI models are created for much more specific tasks and perform much better. Think of a chat bot that is only trained to answer questions about XYZ company's product portfolio.

[Patty Hann]

Some of it is pretty bad... but I think spotting AI generated content is like spotting bad plastic surgery. You never notice the well done stuff. In fact, you've probably already read a bunch of AI generated product descriptions on various websites.

ChatGPT is a generalist - the really interesting generative AI models are created for much more specific tasks and perform much better. Think of a chat bot that is only trained to answer questions about XYZ company's product portfolio.

Yep... Specific AI generated company info = Boilerplate
Probably difficult to spot

[Stan Calow]

YouTube, Free education, and worth every penny.
I've shared my favorite bumper sticker philosophy before: Information ≠ Knowledge ≠ Wisdom

[Tom M King]

I've never watched a woodworking youtube video, or rather been able to watch one. I started on a couple, but I have no interest in watching someone stand there and talk, which seems like the way all the ones I started watching began. I could watch someone really good at working and cranking stuff out, but don't know how to find one of those versus the "experts". I would only be interested in watching someone who makes a living by producing work.

The one good use I get from how-to videos is for a mechanic job. I'll find one that I can stand to listen to about exactly the job I'm getting ready to do, make a list of all the tools used, and have what I need laid out at the start of a job. That particular use really does save a lot of time.

[Pat Germain]

I've never watched a woodworking youtube video, or rather been able to watch one. I started on a couple, but I have no interest in watching someone stand there and talk, which seems like the way all the ones I started watching began. I could watch someone really good at working and cranking stuff out, but don't know how to find one of those versus the "experts". I would only be interested in watching someone who makes a living by producing work.

The one good use I get from how-to videos is for a mechanic job. I'll find one that I can stand to listen to about exactly the job I'm getting ready to do, make a list of all the tools used, and have what I need laid out at the start of a job. That particular use really does save a lot of time.

Just a few days ago David Marks uploaded an episode of "Woodworks" on YouTube. Have you seen that show? It aired on DIY network and I think it's among the best woodworking TV shows. David posted a "short" where he said he will post more episodes of the show.

I admit David a is woodworking hero to me. I met him years ago and took him out to lunch. Super cool guy. He told me how hard he had worked on that TV show. DIY aired repeat episodes for years, but David received no proceeds whatsoever. He was really bummed about this and said he felt kinda foolish for allowing it to happen. I told him he was in good company considering "Gilligan's Island" the "The Brady Bunch" were in syndication for decades and none of the actors in those shows ever received a dime. He pondered this for a minute and said somehow that made him feel better.

So, I hope David can finally make some money from posting those Woodworks videos on YouTube. Check it out!

[Warren Lake]

grampa munster said he was a very wealthy man as his mom told him to ask for residuals. Doesnt Jerry Seinfeld make 800 million a year from Re runs, that is alot of porsches.

There are good cabinetmakers on the net and some of them talk and some just show you. The past I saw on bradshaw guy where he did talk some on safety and how he was taught and then working. Hard to find the good ones as there are so many content movie stars that come up first.

[Pat Germain]

grampa munster said he was a very wealthy man as his mom told him to ask for residuals. Doesnt Jerry Seinfeld make 800 million a year from Re runs, that is alot of porsches.

There are good cabinetmakers on the net and some of them talk and some just show you. The past I saw on bradshaw guy where he did talk some on safety and how he was taught and then working. Hard to find the good ones as there are so many content movie stars that come up first.

A Lewis' mom was very wise!

Many actors learned from the experiences of those actors from Gilligan's Island and The Brady Bunch. They negotiated residuals from any reruns into their contracts.

Based on what I've read, Jerry Seinfeld receives between $40 and $60 million per year from "Seinfeld" reruns. That's far from $800 million, but yeah, still a lot of Porsches.

[Bill Dufour]

Lucille Ball asks for the rights to reruns to I love Lucy. The network was like who wants to see old shows. She got the rights for free but she had to pay to buy the machines to record them.
Lucas got the toy rights for star wars basically for free and then invented the movie toy business. Sorry I meant collectable.
BillD

[Warren Lake]

sorry on the seinfeld number wrong, usually I say going from memory,

They said Lucy was ahead of her time and very smart businesswoman. She set things up the way she wanted.

[Edward Weber]

Just a few days ago David Marks uploaded an episode of "Woodworks" on YouTube. Have you seen that show? It aired on DIY network and I think it's among the best woodworking TV shows. David posted a "short" where he said he will post more episodes of the show.

I admit David a is woodworking hero to me. I met him years ago and took him out to lunch. Super cool guy. He told me how hard he had worked on that TV show. DIY aired repeat episodes for years, but David received no proceeds whatsoever. He was really bummed about this and said he felt kinda foolish for allowing it to happen. I told him he was in good company considering "Gilligan's Island" the "The Brady Bunch" were in syndication for decades and none of the actors in those shows ever received a dime. He pondered this for a minute and said somehow that made him feel better.

So, I hope David can finally make some money from posting those Woodworks videos on YouTube. Check it out!

I was told a story by someone who was in a position to know, that he was a bit ticked off that the show was put on DIY and not HGTV, which apparently has a larger audience, budget and everything else. I really liked his show, we could use more content like that IMO.

[Tom M King]

Just a few days ago David Marks uploaded an episode of "Woodworks" on YouTube. Have you seen that show? It aired on DIY network and I think it's among the best woodworking TV shows. David posted a "short" where he said he will post more episodes of the show.

I admit David a is woodworking hero to me. I met him years ago and took him out to lunch. Super cool guy. He told me how hard he had worked on that TV show. DIY aired repeat episodes for years, but David received no proceeds whatsoever. He was really bummed about this and said he felt kinda foolish for allowing it to happen. I told him he was in good company considering "Gilligan's Island" the "The Brady Bunch" were in syndication for decades and none of the actors in those shows ever received a dime. He pondered this for a minute and said somehow that made him feel better.

So, I hope David can finally make some money from posting those Woodworks videos on YouTube. Check it out!

I looked one up, but only lasted about 20 seconds into it. Just not for me to spend time on.

[Cameron Wood]

I watched an episode- I thought it was charming, well produced, and also nostalgic, using techniques and equipment that I also used back then.

[Edward Weber]

I watched an episode- I thought it was charming, well produced, and also nostalgic, using techniques and equipment that I also used back then.
Did something strike you as being "dated" as far as tools?

[Pat Germain]

I looked one up, but only lasted about 20 seconds into it. Just not for me to spend time on.

If you don't like Woodworks, I expect you wouldn't like any wordworking show of any kind.

[Cameron Wood]

Did something strike you as being "dated" as far as tools?


The 10" chopsaw, Dewalt biscuit joiner, Wetzler clamps (all of which I still have), & mortising with a straight flute router bit stood out.

He actually lives just up the road in the next county.

[Steve Demuth]

Don't be fooled by the hype. AI is mostly just another big, overblown nothing burger.

If by AI you mean general purpose chat or visualization tools like ChatGPT or Stable Diffusion or the like, then I think they are still in the party trick looking for a purpose stage. But the underlying language models are incredible powerful tools - automated fluency in human and many other languages - and they'll find plenty of uses that make sense. And AI generally is much, much more then just those language models. The same techniques that can train a computer model to recognize photos of kittens can train a model to read and interpret ECGs, e.g., better than most human doctors can (and by better, I mean with fewer errors and oversights, and to "see" diagnostic information in the ECG that not even the best human electrophysiologist can see). That's just a single example - I could list dozens in a single branch of medicine, and then move on to other science and engineering fields.

Even the language models do useful work already - we use a Microsoft product to transcribe and summarize meetings. It's way better than human "recorders." It makes mistakes, to be sure, but fewer than the people it's transcribing.

And as Mike Stenson has observed, LLMs write computer code in development shops all over the world on a daily basis. Probably not yet transformative in impact, but not a nothing-burger either.

[Pat Germain]

If by AI you mean general purpose chat or visualization tools like ChatGPT or Stable Diffusion or the like, then I think they are still in the party trick looking for a purpose stage. But the underlying language models are incredible powerful tools - automated fluency in human and many other languages - and they'll find plenty of uses that make sense. And AI generally is much, much more then just those language models. The same techniques that can train a computer model to recognize photos of kittens can train a model to read and interpret ECGs, e.g., better than most human doctors can (and by better, I mean with fewer errors and oversights, and to "see" diagnostic information in the ECG that not even the best human electrophysiologist can see). That's just a single example - I could list dozens in a single branch of medicine, and then move on to other science and engineering fields.

Even the language models do useful work already - we use a Microsoft product to transcribe and summarize meetings. It's way better than human "recorders." It makes mistakes, to be sure, but fewer than the people it's transcribing.

And as Mike Stenson has observed, LLMs write computer code in development shops all over the world on a daily basis. Probably not yet transformative in impact, but not a nothing-burger either.

I'm an IT Professional. I don't work with AI specificially, but I am aware of its potential for the things you listed above. What I think is overblown are the predictions that AI is going to write novels and movie scripts. It can mash something together which is currently meaningless and nonsensical. Sure, these capabilities will get better, but there's just no way AI is going to create imaginative worlds and novel ideas. And I don't see it revolutionizing the world as we know it.

[Edward Weber]

The 10" chopsaw, Dewalt biscuit joiner, Wetzler clamps (all of which I still have), & mortising with a straight flute router bit stood out.

He actually lives just up the road in the next county.

I suppose I don't understand your original comment then.
The tools you list, in the correct hands, are still capable of producing fine work today. I still use them without issue. I wouldn't call any of then "nostalgic" I didn't realize that 10" chop saws and biscuit joiners were from the days of old.

Question;
If you replaced all of them with whatever you think is equivalent today, would you work go faster, easier, be safer, produce a better final product? how would you benefit?

I'm all for progress but there needs to be some type of benefit before abandoning the "nostalgic" tools I'm apparently using.

[Cameron Wood]

I suppose I don't understand your original comment then.
The tools you list, in the correct hands, are still capable of producing fine work today. I still use them without issue. I wouldn't call any of then "nostalgic" I didn't realize that 10" chop saws and biscuit joiners were from the days of old.

Question;
If you replaced all of them with whatever you think is equivalent today, would you work go faster, easier, be safer, produce a better final product? how would you benefit?

I'm all for progress but there needs to be some type of benefit before abandoning the "nostalgic" tools I'm apparently using.



It wasn't a criticism, but I would guess that sales of 10" chopsaws and biscuit joiners are down in favor of 12" sliders and Dominos.

My Makita cast iron saw lives on in spite of the period of time when it would only start if I reached around and hit it with a 2X4 like a stubborn mule, but I do like the cutting capacity of the 12" DeWalt.

[mike stenson]

I'm an IT Professional. I don't work with AI specificially, but I am aware of its potential for the things you listed above. What I think is overblown are the predictions that AI is going to write novels and movie scripts. It can mash something together which is currently meaningless and nonsensical. Sure, these capabilities will get better, but there's just no way AI is going to create imaginative worlds and novel ideas. And I don't see it revolutionizing the world as we know it.

That's exactly why the content it creates is as bad as it is. I really do not look forward to having to participate, as a developer, to this mess. Yet, here we are.. it's THE focus area for my company, so I either do.. or make myself obsolete.

[Edward Weber]

It wasn't a criticism, but I would guess that sales of 10" chopsaws and biscuit joiners are down in favor of 12" sliders and Dominos.

My Makita cast iron saw lives on in spite of the period of time when it would only start if I reached around and hit it with a 2X4 like a stubborn mule, but I do like the cutting capacity of the 12" DeWalt.
You're not wrong, but for some of us who don't jump on the bandwagon
12" slider is not necessary to me at this time.
Domino and biscuits are two different animals in my book.
I guess we just look at things differently.

[Mark Hennebury]

Ai, taking control of everything. past, present and future.

516956 516957 516958 516959

[Cameron Wood]

You're not wrong, but for some of us who don't jump on the bandwagon
12" slider is not necessary to me at this time.
Domino and biscuits are two different animals in my book.
I guess we just look at things differently.


Not that differently. I have a 12" slider but only use it on jobsites. I wasn't looking for one but it was pressed on me by a guy retiring for health reasons.

It's good for cutting wide fascia but would take up too much room in the shop.

I do have a 12" Dewalt single bevel chopsaw that is used both in the shop and out of it. Best combination of cutting capacity, portability, and overall utility IME but I also still use the Makita, bought 1980 or before.

[John C Cox]

I'm on a Tolkien Forum ... discussions range all over the world of Tolkien, including the various dramatizations done over the last 70 years , both TV and the earlier radio presentations.
Those dramatizations can be very polarizing.

So a new member chimes in about the Amazon Rings of Power series (RoP)...(And RoP is incredibly polarizing... most people either love it or hate ... I'm in the "hate it" camp FWIW)
And he has a fairly long post about the pros and cons of RoP.
I read it and re-read it, and finally decide: He's not really saying anything, he's just sitting on the fence.
And more than that the whole thing sounded artificial.

So I PM a mod and ask him if they've vetted the new member because he sounds like AI.
Turns out the person is real (flesh and blood) but he admitted (only when asked point blank) that his contribution to the discussion was AI generated.
He gave the AI the parameters of the discussion and after getting an answer, re-arranged some words or sentences, then posted it. He said he thought it was OK to do that.
The mods informed him that he needs to note at the outset of a post if it is AI generated, but then gently suggested to him that it would be much better to post something entirely of his own thinking.

My own experience (and this was just another instance of it) is that an AI "composition" is still pretty easy to spot.
I wonder how long before it gets better at "creative writing"...

Ironically, a lot of the stuff coming out of people's brains is a LOT worse than what AI's generate, if for no other reason than AI's are generally trained to write complete sentences and to use correct grammar/punctuation. You just would not believe the sort of indecipherable trash that people will post on free websites in the name of writing fiction/poetry.

The thing is... We need to differentiate between where AI's are profitable and where they're an endless money pit. We've done a good job of that in industrial automation. People will go brain dead manually counting out 50 envelope stacks and stuffing them into boxes where machines happily crank stacks out by the billions. People are way better when you need dexterity, judgement, or a lot of variety....

I sort of doubt there will be any money in using AI to do things people like to do. The money will be in the grind, doing things that it's hard to keep people interested in. For example, AI will probably prove profitable doing things like copy editing and grammar/punctuation checking, because that's just grind.

[Edward Weber]

Not that differently. I have a 12" slider but only use it on jobsites. I wasn't looking for one but it was pressed on me by a guy retiring for health reasons.

It's good for cutting wide fascia but would take up too much room in the shop.

I do have a 12" Dewalt single bevel chopsaw that is used both in the shop and out of it. Best combination of cutting capacity, portability, and overall utility IME but I also still use the Makita, bought 1980 or before.
My main miter saw is a Bosch 10" SCMS (https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcQt-LMXFZxAui-JQvkxfzac6GipaDD7gP_z14LLSI81ZgFqHs5WFnEDdDMlLbu2T 8wXLEJjsCBbul7Ef4RDFV7h8tMPB3tLPA) that takes up about a 1/4 acre of room, great saw, never had a bit of issue but I wish it had a smaller footprint.

[Patty Hann]

Ironically, a lot of the stuff coming out of people's brains is a LOT worse than what AI's generate, if for no other reason than AI's are generally trained to write complete sentences and to use correct grammar/punctuation. You just would not believe the sort of indecipherable trash that people will post on free websites in the name of writing fiction/poetry.

The thing is... We need to differentiate between where AI's are profitable and where they're an endless money pit. We've done a good job of that in industrial automation. People will go brain dead manually counting out 50 envelope stacks and stuffing them into boxes where machines happily crank stacks out by the billions. People are way better when you need dexterity, judgement, or a lot of variety....

I sort of doubt there will be any money in using AI to do things people like to do. The money will be in the grind, doing things that it's hard to keep people interested in. For example, AI will probably prove profitable doing things like copy editing and grammar/punctuation checking, because that's just grind.

I guess Grammarly uses AI now.
No way do I want AI checking my writing for grammar, spelling and syntax "mistakes" .
It has to compare my choice of words etc against some kind of standard, and I'm certain that standard is going to reflect the prevailing ideological norms, whatever they are.
When I want my writing critiqued for grammar , spelling, syntax etc I'll rely on other sources I can trust.
I disabled all the auto correct functions at the outset on MS Word etc when I first began using it decades ago.

Companies, business etc can do what they want or need to do... but I'll not be using it.

[mike stenson]

If you're on the Internet, you're sort of a user already.

[Patty Hann]

If you're on the Internet, you're sort of a user already.
If you mean a user of AI while online I agree; it's pretty much unavoidable when doing searches.
If you mean I use AI to write, no, I don't.
It's not possible because I do my own writing.

I use a hardcover dictionary (the same one that Antonin Scalia used, same edition with same pub year.)
And if a word isn't in that dictionary I use the 1980 20 vol edition of the OED (hardcover also, which is sitting in a bookcase in the next room).
I also use an 80 year old [hardcover] edition of Fowler's English language to check grammar (sitting on the same shelf as the "Scalia" dictionary)

In other words I don't see how I'm using AI to write, if by "write" you mean to compose (create) a sentence, paragraph, or essay.

All journals and periodicals I read (to keep up with current events) are in hardcopy edition, and I'm quite certain the writers in those journals are not letting AI write the articles.
I've been reading those authors for so long that I would see a change in their style, how they argue a point, their POV etc. How they argue is especially telltale.
All books both fiction and nonfiction I try to get pre-2000 editions (again, hardcopies).

[Edward Weber]

There is a big difference between AI checking for grammar and spelling or doing a web search than there is for it to "create content".
People constantly conflate all things AI as if they're all the same.
Autocomplete may be considered AI but it's not going to replace you at your job.
Using the internet, you may be exposed to a small amount of influence but it all depends on what sites you visit as to whether content is generated by it.

[Bill Howatt]

I did a small test with ChatGPT strictly as a matter of interest. I do write an article twice a year advertising our concert so I told it I wanted a newspaper article for an upcoming Christmas band concert: band name, certain date, location, gave names of a few pieces and "plus others" - and that was all I told it.
While an English professor might have faulted the production, I was amazed at what it produced given such little information and it even mentioned important things that I didn't mention such as admission price, ticket availability.
ChatGPT has a "redo" button so I got a second article that the style was a bit more to-the-point than the first one.
if my job was to write such pieces, I would be concerned about my job; it is foolish to dismiss AI at this early stage.

[glenn bradley]

Next up is the woodworking teacher.

516737


https://twitter.com/i/status/1762591183862399070

Gee, wonder what happened last time???

[Edward Weber]

I did a small test with ChatGPT strictly as a matter of interest. I do write an article twice a year advertising our concert so I told it I wanted a newspaper article for an upcoming Christmas band concert: band name, certain date, location, gave names of a few pieces and "plus others" - and that was all I told it.
While an English professor might have faulted the production, I was amazed at what it produced given such little information and it even mentioned important things that I didn't mention such as admission price, ticket availability.


So how did it give back information you didn't provide, like ticket prices?
That info must already be somewhere it can access it.

[Bill Howatt]

So how did it give back information you didn't provide, like ticket prices?
That info must already be somewhere it can access it.
It didn't give the actual prices. I'll paraphrase, it said something like, "Tickets are available at XXXX for $X.XX" which provided a reminder that this information should be included in the article. So, you can look at from the perspective that the program knew what is important in such an article even if I didn't appear to know that.

[Mark Hennebury]

It wont be long until they realize that they don't need us and that we are a blight on the planet.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq1QZB5baNw&t=128s

[Edward Weber]

This video is a bit old, 8 years.
In my mind, at 1:26 in to the video is when the robots started planning the takeover of the skin covered carbon units.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

[Mark Hennebury]

The latest news.


https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/artificial-intelligence-could-pose-extinction-level-threat-to-humans-expert-warns/vi-BB1jYd2H?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=295ebf0df5c14e e9890c258e3d470d91&ei=85

517057

[Steve Demuth]

I did a small test with ChatGPT strictly as a matter of interest. I do write an article twice a year advertising our concert so I told it I wanted a newspaper article for an upcoming Christmas band concert: band name, certain date, location, gave names of a few pieces and "plus others" - and that was all I told it.
While an English professor might have faulted the production, I was amazed at what it produced given such little information and it even mentioned important things that I didn't mention such as admission price, ticket availability.
ChatGPT has a "redo" button so I got a second article that the style was a bit more to-the-point than the first one.
if my job was to write such pieces, I would be concerned about my job; it is foolish to dismiss AI at this early stage.

Folk's endorsements, criticisms and general observations of generative models like ChatGPT are a great way to learn about the world view and and analytic thought processes of the observer. Most are not a good way to understand anything about generative AI how it works, what it can and can't do, or how it will and won't change the way we work and play.

You make a great point, though, that I think is consistent with LLM's capabilities and potential: a lot of the reading people do is not synthetic, it's fairly straightforward gathering of salient information from a mass of fluent prose, and a lot of the writing people do is not creative, it is merely translation of a handful of ideas into fluent prose - as in your example. LLMs, properly tuned and used are good at both of these tasks - extracting summary information, or even precise features of given language, and generating translations of fragmentary ideas into a fluent rendition in some standard format. If either of those are your bread and butter skills at work, LLMs are coming for much of your work. The current products are a very basic versions of those capabilities, the "it just works" versions are not far behind, in my opinion.

Those kinds of things, are within reach of current generative (language) AI capabilities because they require only two things to perfect: language fluency, and a familiarity with the requirements of successful prose in a wide range of structures and formats. LLMs have those two things (fluency being the breakthrough that the transformer architecture at scale brings to the table; familiarity with the corpus of structures being a natural byproduct of being trained at scale on so much content).

What the current generation does poorly, or not at all, is to combine fluency with other reasoning models - numerical, scientific, logical, etc, to do problem solving. They get some of this as a side effect of fluency and the range of training data, but it's very uneven, and not at all well developed. This combination of models is a hallmark of how humans think, when thinking is actually required. Based on what I've seen in various labs, there are a few highly creative groups working hard on this problem. Google Deepmind is probably the most creative in this respect, but I've seen work from Microsoft as well that is very interesting. Some of what independent groups have done with OpenAI's API interfaces to ChatGPT points to real possibilities in this area as well. It will change the way we think about AI again, although I would not venture a guess as to when. I am of the opinion that additional breakthroughs comparable to those in the transformer LLM models at scale are required before multi-model reasoning and creativity achieve fluency.

[Pat Germain]

The latest news.


https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/artificial-intelligence-could-pose-extinction-level-threat-to-humans-expert-warns/vi-BB1jYd2H?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=295ebf0df5c14e e9890c258e3d470d91&ei=85

517057

I've been hearing predictions just like this for over fifty years. Somehow, we're all still here.

CGI has not replaced human actors.

Self-driving cars have not replaced human drivers.

Robots have not replaced humans in the workforce.

Computers have not replaced humans in the workforce,

Sure, technology has replaced some human jobs. But it hasn't been the end of the world as we know it. And AI won't be the end of the world as we know it either. AI has great potential as a tool, but that's all it is; Just like CGI, robots and computers. Prediction doom and and gloom always gets media attention so people keep doing it.

[Mark Hennebury]

.............

517172

[Pat Germain]

.............

517172

Years ago I saw a cartoon where a guy with signs like that was on a street corner. An Admiral approached him and shouted, "That's classified information!".

[Doug Garson]

Despite all the "labor saving" devices we have today, the average workweek in 2022 was only about 6.4% less than in 1970.

[Edward Weber]

Despite all the "labor saving" devices we have today, the average workweek in 2022 was only about 6.4% less than in 1970.
You could probably attribute that to the cell phone

[Bill Howatt]

You could probably attribute that to the cell phone

Years ago, before I retired, cell phones were "the new thing" and some people were issued company cells - a lot of them took pleasure in using it as a status symbol of how important they must be. This pleasure diminished when they found they were being called at all hours, not just during the workday.
Cell phone attribution can be broadened to internet. "I know you are on holiday in the Barbados, but can you login and ....".