3 ms·

> you're not familiar with. Agreed - unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the field at all :( > it doesn't invalidate his thesis anyway But, but, his thesis

> you're not familiar with. Agreed - unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the field at all :( > it doesn't invalidate his thesis anyway But, but, his thesis is that we're inevitably heading in the direction of a dystopia with "robo judges" and scientific pursuit being judged based on "metrics"... And that "surveillance capitalism" companies and the proponents of AI are power-hungry demons who plan to use AI to force some unspecified "psychology model" on the society as a whole! Well, maybe that's how it is - I suspect it's not like that, but I can't know for sure. My objection is that, whatever the plans of evil corporations and traitors-to-humanity scientists, our current technology is nowhere near enabling any of the "changes to society" the author fears. The "superhuman intelligence" is not going to surface for a long time, the "bots" which "write quality editorials and replace journalists" will probably be realized something like 5 years before the "superhuman intelligence" mentioned, so also in the (very) far future. As for funding science, it's not AI (nor AI proponents) who come up with "metrics", but people, and they did so for the past 2 centuries at the very least. Yes, it's dangerous, but it has nothing to do with AI. The paper makes it sound like the hype around the AI is an imminent danger to the society-as-we-know-it, but isn't it infinitely more probable that this hype will follow thousands of others and simply die out? I guess what I want to say is that the difference in complexity between - also impressive in their own right - current ML-based solution and any kind of understanding is so vast that worrying about what will happen when the AI will be capable of the latter in no way justifies the sensationalist tone of the article. Well, I could be misinterpreting the author due to my unfamiliarity, so maybe it's not particularly sensationalist for the field and I just misinterpreted it.

chobeat 8y ago
> But, but, his thesis is that we're inevitably heading in the direction of a dystopia with "robo judges" and scientific pursuit being judged based on "metrics"... And that "surveillance capitalism" companies and the proponents of AI are power-hungry demons who plan to use AI to force some unspecified "psychology model" on the society as a whole! I would argue that this is the present, not the future. > Well, maybe that's how it is - I suspect it's not like that, but I can't know for sure. My objection is that, whatever the plans of evil corporations and traitors-to-humanity scientists, our current technology is nowhere near enabling any of the "changes to society" the author fears. You don't need advanced technology for that. The existing technology is more than enough and we're seeing the devastating effects on the existing society. I don't think that for the thesis of the author, the actual progress of technology is relevant: if it looks intelligent, they will apply the narrative and profit from it. The author is talking about how the promise of a yet to come AGI helps to build a narrative today that is used to exploit people. This is one thing. The dystopia is a critique to the narrative itself, that would lead to even further deterioration of the social fabric if it keeps being pursued. This is completely independent by the satisfaction of the promise of AGI or similar. As long as the narrative is believable, it will be used.

chobeat 8y ago

> But, but, his thesis is that we're inevitably heading in the direction of a dystopia with "robo judges" and scientific pursuit being judged based on "metrics"... And that "surveillance capitalism" companies and the proponents of AI are power-hungry demons who plan to use AI to force some unspecified "psychology model" on the society as a whole! I would argue that this is the present, not the future. > Well, maybe that's how it is - I suspect it's not like that, but I can't know for sure. My objection is that, whatever the plans of evil corporations and traitors-to-humanity scientists, our current technology is nowhere near enabling any of the "changes to society" the author fears. You don't need advanced technology for that. The existing technology is more than enough and we're seeing the devastating effects on the existing society. I don't think that for the thesis of the author, the actual progress of technology is relevant: if it looks intelligent, they will apply the narrative and profit from it. The author is talking about how the promise of a yet to come AGI helps to build a narrative today that is used to exploit people. This is one thing. The dystopia is a critique to the narrative itself, that would lead to even further deterioration of the social fabric if it keeps being pursued. This is completely independent by the satisfaction of the promise of AGI or similar. As long as the narrative is believable, it will be used.