3 ms·

History has already answered this numerous times. AI is a tool much like a semi-automatic rifle or the printing press. The people who understand it well have

History has already answered this numerous times. AI is a tool much like a semi-automatic rifle or the printing press. The people who understand it well have an accelerated advantage over those who do not. It is both a good and bad thing depending upon who wields the tool. Like any force multiplier it will be misunderstood (magic) and improperly regulated by both open and closed societies alike. Like with any tool the real victors will be those who adapt it to solve basic immediate problems: a utility.

intended 8y ago
The question people need to address, is whether AI is a tool like the evolution from the Gun to the automatic rifle. OR whether AI is the kind of tool like flight, which made fortresses redundant. We have many areas of thought and society, which have been protected by walls of 'difficulty' making them intractable to large scale, automated and effective manipulation. This may no longer be the case, and AI may well represent the more fundamental change of the second kind.
- austincheney 8y ago
  Why must people know those things? As with any new technology the second and third order consequences are unclear and will likely be entirely surprising beyond any intended (or not) consequences. Here is what my own experience in programming and my understanding of history have taught me. A sufficiently advanced understanding of a useful technology (doesn't even have to be new) allows a small group dominance over spaces traditionally controlled by large organizations or heavy investments in large technology. This causes fear and panic when it becomes clear. The common current solution is to attempt to purchase the competition, but what if the competition is not available for purchase? Perhaps the most common fallacy regarding new technology is that you can destroy the competition with a sufficiently large force. History has proven this false numerous times and it remains false with modern technology. Consider the battle of Argincout, battle of Crecy, or the establishment of the Yuan dynasty. Consider how much current corporations are investing in AI research with thousands of dedicated developers. A superior technology can easily compete with Amazon's AI unit, for example, even though you may have a team of 5 developers competing against their 5000. The reason why is because it takes time to learn and develop a superior understanding of technology necessary to create the superior technology while the army of competing developers will find friction abandoning their perceptions of reality even when confronted with critical evidence. An army of 5000 developers is an establishment of culture, practices, identify, and perceptions resulting in a large stagnant wall.
matt4077 8y ago
Some technology is obviously more useful to the population at large, such as the printing press. Other trchnology is more useful to the tyrant, such as the helicopter only they can afford, and use to monitor the city centers for groups of those unruly students. The idea of all technology being neutral and equally useful for any cause is absurd. The discussion is what category AInfalls under. I can instantly see its value for the centralized surveillance state: find the signal within all the noise of those bills of calls, messages, and CCTV images a state can capture. I can’t immediately think of anything useful the technology could do for a few people fighting for dmcrocracy. They do not even have access to any such vast data trove that’s usually at the beginning of the AI value chain.
- austincheney 8y ago
  A tyrant is just a ruler. > The discussion is what category AInfalls under. A tool or utility. A hammer drives nails into wood enabling construction far superior to hands alone. A hammer can also crush skulls. A hammer is a utility. The determinate use is left to the user. The same objective reasoning applies to successful gun laws, which is often fatally missed by the gun lobby and advocates of gun restrictions.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
    Check any dictionary, except a 2000 year old Latin one. A tyrant is “a cruel and oppressive ruler” (Oxford American). Since you know that this is how the word has been commonly used for at least decades, and it is entirely clear from context that it was the intended meaning here, why do you feel it appropriate to waste everyone’s time with such a transparently bad-faith attempt to derail the discussion? Then, maybe, actually engage with the argument, instead of just restating its opposite without adding anything to support that viewpoint.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      Because in the context of the conversation (about a tool) whether or not a leader is cruel the result is still the same. Objectively, mean people do not define a tool's presence.

intended 8y ago

The question people need to address, is whether AI is a tool like the evolution from the Gun to the automatic rifle. OR whether AI is the kind of tool like flight, which made fortresses redundant. We have many areas of thought and society, which have been protected by walls of 'difficulty' making them intractable to large scale, automated and effective manipulation. This may no longer be the case, and AI may well represent the more fundamental change of the second kind.

austincheney 8y ago
Why must people know those things? As with any new technology the second and third order consequences are unclear and will likely be entirely surprising beyond any intended (or not) consequences. Here is what my own experience in programming and my understanding of history have taught me. A sufficiently advanced understanding of a useful technology (doesn't even have to be new) allows a small group dominance over spaces traditionally controlled by large organizations or heavy investments in large technology. This causes fear and panic when it becomes clear. The common current solution is to attempt to purchase the competition, but what if the competition is not available for purchase? Perhaps the most common fallacy regarding new technology is that you can destroy the competition with a sufficiently large force. History has proven this false numerous times and it remains false with modern technology. Consider the battle of Argincout, battle of Crecy, or the establishment of the Yuan dynasty. Consider how much current corporations are investing in AI research with thousands of dedicated developers. A superior technology can easily compete with Amazon's AI unit, for example, even though you may have a team of 5 developers competing against their 5000. The reason why is because it takes time to learn and develop a superior understanding of technology necessary to create the superior technology while the army of competing developers will find friction abandoning their perceptions of reality even when confronted with critical evidence. An army of 5000 developers is an establishment of culture, practices, identify, and perceptions resulting in a large stagnant wall.

matt4077 8y ago

Some technology is obviously more useful to the population at large, such as the printing press. Other trchnology is more useful to the tyrant, such as the helicopter only they can afford, and use to monitor the city centers for groups of those unruly students. The idea of all technology being neutral and equally useful for any cause is absurd. The discussion is what category AInfalls under. I can instantly see its value for the centralized surveillance state: find the signal within all the noise of those bills of calls, messages, and CCTV images a state can capture. I can’t immediately think of anything useful the technology could do for a few people fighting for dmcrocracy. They do not even have access to any such vast data trove that’s usually at the beginning of the AI value chain.

austincheney 8y ago
A tyrant is just a ruler. > The discussion is what category AInfalls under. A tool or utility. A hammer drives nails into wood enabling construction far superior to hands alone. A hammer can also crush skulls. A hammer is a utility. The determinate use is left to the user. The same objective reasoning applies to successful gun laws, which is often fatally missed by the gun lobby and advocates of gun restrictions.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
  Check any dictionary, except a 2000 year old Latin one. A tyrant is “a cruel and oppressive ruler” (Oxford American). Since you know that this is how the word has been commonly used for at least decades, and it is entirely clear from context that it was the intended meaning here, why do you feel it appropriate to waste everyone’s time with such a transparently bad-faith attempt to derail the discussion? Then, maybe, actually engage with the argument, instead of just restating its opposite without adding anything to support that viewpoint.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Because in the context of the conversation (about a tool) whether or not a leader is cruel the result is still the same. Objectively, mean people do not define a tool's presence.