3 ms·

I don't think there is any defensible reason to have people at large suffer over AI advancement, without having a plan for making their lifes better. If AI tak

I don't think there is any defensible reason to have people at large suffer over AI advancement, without having a plan for making their lifes better. If AI takes jobs because it's simply superior at them, and that creates friction and anxiety until we have stuff figured out, that's of course sad and we should do our best to soften the process, but I think it's inevitable. The carriage must die. It seems obvious that restrictions on training data are just a distraction and will not move the needle on any interesting time frame. If however AI does not pay forward, in an arrangement that makes our collective lifes better, I will be the first to work on burning it into to the fucking ground. But, on a lighter note, since that has generally been the direction of human civilization (not linear when zoomed in, but always when zooming out) I remain optimistic.

KaiserPro 4y ago
In the anglo-saxon world, I have not seen significant successful program since the industrial revolution that has helped or softened the impact of a new process on an affected lump of people[1]. The weavers were left to rot when the automatic looms came in. (there were in flanders east england and northern france incredibly rich and influential class) Furniture makers were left to rot when steam power tools came in Farm labourer were left to starve when steam threshing/harvesting came in. enclosure was another tragic note in england. The green shirts were lobbying for "a share of the domestic profit" in the 20s-30s, in the 60s they were convinced that we were going to be working 2 hours a day by now, with robot servants cooking and cleaning for us, and no-one would be living in poverty. Even Orwell has written on this. Instead we see productivity in the western[2] world dropping. Meaning for every human hour worked we make less money. because I suspect in part to the rise of servant-as-a-service jobs(food/shopping delivery/cleaning/elderly care etc etc) all of which are long hours and low paid. [1] well, DDR everyone had a job, but lived in permapovety and were likely to be disappeared if you spoke out. [2] specifically the US and UK, who appear to be snorting financial inequality by the metric fuckton
- jstummbillig 4y ago
  Fair enough. All is not well. What I was more so thinking of are the unspecific societal functions that evolved to the benefit of everybody, but more so to those who could not have afforded them beforehand: Quality health care, various forms of social support, more accessible education and food, better road systems. The stuff that makes the charts on education, prosperity and health go from bottom left to top right and child mortality and hunger in the opposite direction. The injustices of the day do not show in the most important, most long term graphs. As far as I can tell (and I am happy to hear your thoughts) this can only be true because people have benefitted increasingly from things improving, over time.

KaiserPro 4y ago

In the anglo-saxon world, I have not seen significant successful program since the industrial revolution that has helped or softened the impact of a new process on an affected lump of people[1]. The weavers were left to rot when the automatic looms came in. (there were in flanders east england and northern france incredibly rich and influential class) Furniture makers were left to rot when steam power tools came in Farm labourer were left to starve when steam threshing/harvesting came in. enclosure was another tragic note in england. The green shirts were lobbying for "a share of the domestic profit" in the 20s-30s, in the 60s they were convinced that we were going to be working 2 hours a day by now, with robot servants cooking and cleaning for us, and no-one would be living in poverty. Even Orwell has written on this. Instead we see productivity in the western[2] world dropping. Meaning for every human hour worked we make less money. because I suspect in part to the rise of servant-as-a-service jobs(food/shopping delivery/cleaning/elderly care etc etc) all of which are long hours and low paid. [1] well, DDR everyone had a job, but lived in permapovety and were likely to be disappeared if you spoke out. [2] specifically the US and UK, who appear to be snorting financial inequality by the metric fuckton

jstummbillig 4y ago
Fair enough. All is not well. What I was more so thinking of are the unspecific societal functions that evolved to the benefit of everybody, but more so to those who could not have afforded them beforehand: Quality health care, various forms of social support, more accessible education and food, better road systems. The stuff that makes the charts on education, prosperity and health go from bottom left to top right and child mortality and hunger in the opposite direction. The injustices of the day do not show in the most important, most long term graphs. As far as I can tell (and I am happy to hear your thoughts) this can only be true because people have benefitted increasingly from things improving, over time.