Has AI been used yet for routing or GCA

[Tom_Doak]

I guess we better destroy all copies of Tom Doak's "Getting to 18" before A1 absorbs it

I thought pretty hard about that when we were doing the book, though I will admit my concerns were more about Chinese knock-offs than about Silicon Valley knock-offs.


In hindsight, since every course I’ve ever built has publicly available LIDAR data, I’m screwed once someone goes to the trouble.  But that doesn’t mean I will leave all of the data in one easy-to-find location . . . and I will ask everyone on this site not to compile it, either.

[Simon Barrington]

I guess we better destroy all copies of Tom Doak's "Getting to 18" before A1 absorbs it

I thought pretty hard about that when we were doing the book, though I will admit my concerns were more about Chinese knock-offs than about Silicon Valley knock-offs.

In hindsight, since every course I’ve ever built has publicly available LIDAR data, I’m screwed once someone goes to the trouble.  But that doesn’t mean I will leave all of the data in one easy-to-find location . . . and I will ask everyone on this site not to compile it, either.

This is a serious point as especially in niche subjects like GCA where the voracious LLM machines have so far failed to find relevant insights, what we all post (or make public elsewhere) at this time is even more valuable to the AI now as it tries to fill its "knowledge" (i.e. LLM Database) gaps.


I have already found novel niche heritage discoveries of my own, repeated without attribution by AI (and also by humans too tbf) as has my wife who researches in a simarly small niche of botany and folklore...that makes one wary of publishing/commenting with genuinely novel insights. For me this is a somewhat trivial annoyance, but for Tom and creative practising professionals (in many fields) this challenges their "edge" and potentially their livelihood...

[Mark Pearce]

I find this discussion interesting as in my profession(s), attorney by day, painter by night, I have been advised that for the attorney part, "AI won't replace an attorney, but an attorney that uses AI will replace those who don't use AI."  I honestly struggle with seeing how it can acquire the 25 years of practicing law knowledge I have and be able to come up with the right solution for a client.  I am trying to be open to AI assisting my work, such as reviewing contracts or medical records, but for lack of better word, I don't "trust" that it will do the job as good or as thorough as I do the job. Maybe someday it will have a higher trust factor. 

It won't do that bit well, yet.  But ask it to do a first pass of a disclosure exercise, or summarise your correspondence with your client regarding billing, and it'll save you time.  It doesn't (yet) do the clever bits well at all, but it can really help with the mundane.

[Mark Pearce]

I recently was talking to a Professor of Computer Science at Oxford, who had contributed to a multi-disciplinary discussion paper which discussed AI and creativity (mostly in the context of intellectual property law, as the lead contributor (of about 10 academics) was an IP partner from the San Francisco office of a law firm who was an academic visitor on sabbatical).  One of the themes addressed was the strong evidence that human creativity diminishes noticeably and rapidly when humans use AI to supplement creative endeavour.  Original thought diminishes and works tend to a mean.


I don't think that sounds like what we want from GCA?