[TheOtherHobbes]

That's because computers are dumb servants. And that's a good thing, because computer solutions should be task specific. The human has agency and sometimes imagination, and the computer's job is to solve a problem as transparently as possible with as little cognitive load as possible.

Human language is optimised for human relationships, not for task-specific problem solving. It's full of subtext, context, and implication.

As soon as you try to use natural language for general open-ended problem solving you get lack of clarity and unintended consequences. At best you'll have to keep repeating the request until you get what you want, at worst you'll get a disaster you didn't consider.

[cmrdporcupine]

Yes, the machine should be a humanity-amplifier, not a humanity-replacement.

“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” Frank Herbert, Dune

[wwweston]

Herbert is describing a humanity amplifying phenomenon.

[cmrdporcupine]

Herbert saw machine-thinking / AI as taking away human-ness, not adding to it. Or at least his Bene Gesserit did. Many quotes throughout the series about the corrosive effects of letting humans defer their complicated choices to machines, etc.

[vasco]

> And that's a good thing, because computer solutions should be task specific

Why? I enjoyed your comment but I don't follow why this is obvious?

Why should computer solutions be task specific rather than general?

[kjkjadksj]

So that when you ask what 1+1 is you get 2 and not a general solution

[falcor84]

Why not both?

If I were making an API call, I'd want to get 2, but as an end user, I'd be delighted in "It's 2 and here's how I arrived at it ...'

[danielovichdk]

"computer solutions should be task specific". Sums it up perfectly