4 ms·

The thing that frightens me is that we are rapidly reaching broad humanity disrupting ML technologies without any of the social or societal frameworks to cope w

by achr2 4y ago

The thing that frightens me is that we are rapidly reaching broad humanity disrupting ML technologies without any of the social or societal frameworks to cope with it.

narrator 4y ago
There were bigger disruptions in the past. The telegraph, railroads, explosives. "The Devils" by Dostoevsky is a great fictional account of what all these technological disruptions do to the fragile social order in the late 19th century Russia countryside. All of a sudden all these foreign people, ideas , technology and commerce start streaming in to these once isolated communities.
throwaway675309 4y ago
I'm usually not a fan of this general hand wringing / fear mongering around ML that a lot of people with too much time and not enough STEM background constantly bring up. Stable diffusion has been made available to the public for quite a while now and if anything has disproved a lot of the ungrounded nonsense that made companies like OpenAI censor their generative models.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  >I'm usually not a fan of this general hand wringing / fear mongering around ML that a lot of people with too much time and not enough STEM background constantly bring up. What's with the STEM reference? Are you implying that STEM is related to intelligence and that people without a STEM background are not intelligent? It is well known among academics (AKA STEM MAJORS) that human society is a chaotic system and that ML can change society for the better or for the worse... the outcome is basically unknown... It is therefore the intelligent choice to consider the negative consequences of this technology. To not consider the other side indicates a lack of something.
  - lolspace 4y ago
    That's exactly what he's saying. How many citations does the top cited paper from the LessWrong community have?
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  SD has been out for about a month and it is first gen technology. If "quite a while" was 5 years, then sure, I'll agree. But we are one month into the experiment, and the technology still struggles to get wholly authentic looking media. I'd say it would be wise to give it a few years before claiming victory.
- otikik 4y ago
  I don't think you understand. I watched this humor group when I was little (think 30 years ago). Usually they are inoffensive, but they have this particular sketch were a (man crossdressed as a) woman complains about "his husband hitting her" ... and you can see that one of her eyes is black. With canned laughs during the whole thing. This used to make people laugh. 30 years ago. Then we had social changes and gradually our perspective as a society shifted, and this humor piece looks ... grotesque. That's how I interpret the "societal changes" the OP is referring to. We have shiny new things every week and there's no time to adapt to them.

by achr2 4y ago

The thing that frightens me is that we are rapidly reaching broad humanity disrupting ML technologies without any of the social or societal frameworks to cope with it.

narrator 4y ago

There were bigger disruptions in the past. The telegraph, railroads, explosives. "The Devils" by Dostoevsky is a great fictional account of what all these technological disruptions do to the fragile social order in the late 19th century Russia countryside. All of a sudden all these foreign people, ideas , technology and commerce start streaming in to these once isolated communities.

throwaway675309 4y ago

I'm usually not a fan of this general hand wringing / fear mongering around ML that a lot of people with too much time and not enough STEM background constantly bring up. Stable diffusion has been made available to the public for quite a while now and if anything has disproved a lot of the ungrounded nonsense that made companies like OpenAI censor their generative models.

deltasevennine 4y ago
>I'm usually not a fan of this general hand wringing / fear mongering around ML that a lot of people with too much time and not enough STEM background constantly bring up. What's with the STEM reference? Are you implying that STEM is related to intelligence and that people without a STEM background are not intelligent? It is well known among academics (AKA STEM MAJORS) that human society is a chaotic system and that ML can change society for the better or for the worse... the outcome is basically unknown... It is therefore the intelligent choice to consider the negative consequences of this technology. To not consider the other side indicates a lack of something.
- lolspace 4y ago
  That's exactly what he's saying. How many citations does the top cited paper from the LessWrong community have?
Workaccount2 4y ago
SD has been out for about a month and it is first gen technology. If "quite a while" was 5 years, then sure, I'll agree. But we are one month into the experiment, and the technology still struggles to get wholly authentic looking media. I'd say it would be wise to give it a few years before claiming victory.
otikik 4y ago
I don't think you understand. I watched this humor group when I was little (think 30 years ago). Usually they are inoffensive, but they have this particular sketch were a (man crossdressed as a) woman complains about "his husband hitting her" ... and you can see that one of her eyes is black. With canned laughs during the whole thing. This used to make people laugh. 30 years ago. Then we had social changes and gradually our perspective as a society shifted, and this humor piece looks ... grotesque. That's how I interpret the "societal changes" the OP is referring to. We have shiny new things every week and there's no time to adapt to them.