3 ms·

I work with these systems all day, every day, and these new systems are qualitatively different. These new transformer systems have crossed a line and its easy

by NO-AI 4y ago

I work with these systems all day, every day, and these new systems are qualitatively different. These new transformer systems have crossed a line and its easy to see how they will threaten human dignity. This technology crosses a line. It's like atomic weapons. This is the commoditization of the human mind.

qgin 4y ago
You're 100% right. But I'm convinced there's realistically nothing we can do to stop it. Yuval Noah Harari's Homo Deus (and Sapiens to a lesser extent) are about the possible future paths for humanity and computers that increasingly surpass our abilities in more and more ways. It will absolutely be hugely disruptive to culture, the structure of society, and our perception of ourselves. But I don't see how it can be avoided.
tqi 4y ago
1. How did rejecting atomic weapons go? 2. In what way does it "threaten human dignity" that is different from the technologies that came before it? Automation took away the livelihoods of people in industries like manufacturing decades ago. Feels like what is truly "different" this time around is just that you feel your job is threatened, so now it's a problem for all of society.
- solresol 4y ago
  Not the pp, but: 1. For many countries (e.g. Australia), quite successfully. We said no, and then we didn't. 2. We can replace physical activity (e.g. machinery instead of human motion), and that doesn't move human beings from the place of control and power. Likewise, we can replace certain kinds of thinking work (e.g. programming or medicine) and that in itself isn't a major problem (except for the out-of-work programmers or doctors). But replacing all cognitive activity (which is what a hypothetical future AI would do), what are we --- as humans --- left with?
  - Wolfbeta 4y ago
    Pure hedonism?
  - qgin 4y ago
    I think there's room for value even when you're not the best.
  - tqi 4y ago
    1. But the crux the issue here (and with atomic weapons) is that as long not everyone has rejected it, then end result is not meaningfully different. And it's impossible to get everyone to reject it. 2. Again, I don't think that argument carries a lot of weight with people whose lives have already been completely upended by technology. The fact that some people now feel that This Time Is Different and thus we must all band together to hold the line betrays a deep lack of empathy.

by NO-AI 4y ago

qgin 4y ago

You're 100% right. But I'm convinced there's realistically nothing we can do to stop it. Yuval Noah Harari's Homo Deus (and Sapiens to a lesser extent) are about the possible future paths for humanity and computers that increasingly surpass our abilities in more and more ways. It will absolutely be hugely disruptive to culture, the structure of society, and our perception of ourselves. But I don't see how it can be avoided.

tqi 4y ago

1. How did rejecting atomic weapons go? 2. In what way does it "threaten human dignity" that is different from the technologies that came before it? Automation took away the livelihoods of people in industries like manufacturing decades ago. Feels like what is truly "different" this time around is just that you feel your job is threatened, so now it's a problem for all of society.

solresol 4y ago
Not the pp, but: 1. For many countries (e.g. Australia), quite successfully. We said no, and then we didn't. 2. We can replace physical activity (e.g. machinery instead of human motion), and that doesn't move human beings from the place of control and power. Likewise, we can replace certain kinds of thinking work (e.g. programming or medicine) and that in itself isn't a major problem (except for the out-of-work programmers or doctors). But replacing all cognitive activity (which is what a hypothetical future AI would do), what are we --- as humans --- left with?
- Wolfbeta 4y ago
  Pure hedonism?
- qgin 4y ago
  I think there's room for value even when you're not the best.
- tqi 4y ago
  1. But the crux the issue here (and with atomic weapons) is that as long not everyone has rejected it, then end result is not meaningfully different. And it's impossible to get everyone to reject it. 2. Again, I don't think that argument carries a lot of weight with people whose lives have already been completely upended by technology. The fact that some people now feel that This Time Is Different and thus we must all band together to hold the line betrays a deep lack of empathy.