7 ms·

"ChatGPT isn't really new but simply an iteration of the class war that's been waged since the start of the industrial revolution." I'm scared too but this is

"ChatGPT isn't really new but simply an iteration of the class war that's been waged since the start of the industrial revolution." I'm scared too but this is literally neo-ludite sperging.

esjeon 4y ago
This is not entirely ludite. Massive AI models has to be trained on the massive amount of data from the internet, which is built by the entirety of the humankind. However, the profit from those models is not being systemically redistributed to the society. Those AI companies are standing right on a copyright gray zone, and are abusing people's goodwill to benefit only a select few. The social capital that built the internet culture will get dried up, and the internet will become a misery filled with AI-generated low quality contents injected with user-tracking ads.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  The Internet has already become a misery filled with low quality contents injected with user-tracking ads. Adding "AI-generated" into the phrase doesn't really change much. If you make the argument of scale matters, then I think that'll also democratize art. Photography didn't put artists out of commission, it brought realism as an art form to the hands of the masses. There's plenty of creativity left to be had post-AI. Now an entirely new class of people enter the realm of multi-disciplinary art, since they can compensate for personal deficit in side-fields. The profits from these models go into running them. They don't fit on consumer-grade hardware. However, I do believe that society should subsidise art, and distribute automated wealth somewhat evenly, so I don't even disagree with you. I'm from such society and it's pretty great. "The Internet" is just other people's computers. Don't like AI content? Don't visit those sites. Not every site has ads, either. Hosting is the cheapest it's ever been. It's a curation and reputation issue.
  - deely3 4y ago
    > However, I do believe that society should subsidise art, and distribute automated wealth somewhat evenly, so I don't even disagree with you. I'm from such society and it's pretty great. Are you from future or from non-profit DeviantArt community?
    - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
      I'm from Finland where the baseline social security is home, food, heat, water, electricity, Internet, education, and healthcare. There are no starving artists here :)
      - deely3 4y ago
        Oh. Future then. Ok.
- dools 4y ago
  Yes the odious part is not about how much labour it will eliminate but about how it will take a “commons” and enclose it much the same as pharmaceutical patents have done for folk remedies or the enclosure of common lands.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  You are describing a situation very similar to what the Luddites went through. When the automated clothes making systems showed up they all lost their jobs and the profit went to the capital owners instead of being redistributed to society. It just turns out that technology creates so much value that even without proper distribution it's still an overwhelmingly good thing.
- hajile 4y ago
  It’s not a “gray zone”. Derivative works are flatly covered by copyright law and this definitely doesn’t meet any of the fair use criteria either.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
As is always pointed out when this comes up, the luddites broke machines as a strategic move to resist the undermining of their class interests and livelihood by workshop owners. So the comparison is correct, but not in the way you mean, and as the luddites were right to break machines then so we are now.
- chii 4y ago
  They were not right to break the machines. Sometimes the wheels of progress will roll and grind over the bones of those underneath in order to move forward. You just have to hope you get out of the way in time, and cling on as the whole apparatus moves forward.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    Well calling it the “wheels of progress” implies a contentious value judgment they probably would not have agreed with. And sometimes things don’t happen because people decide they’d prefer not to have their bones ground after all and successfully resist.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    This is one of the most inhuman takes I've seen on HN and that's a damn high bar.
    - x-complexity 4y ago
      > > > (y) As is always pointed out when this comes up, the luddites broke machines as a strategic move to resist the undermining of their class interests and livelihood by workshop owners. > > > (y) So the comparison is correct, but not in the way you mean, and as the luddites were right to break machines then so we are now. > > They were not right to break the machines. Sometimes the wheels of progress will roll and grind over the bones of those underneath in order to move forward. You just have to hope you get out of the way in time, and cling on as the whole apparatus moves forward. > (y) This is one of the most inhuman takes I've seen on HN and that's a damn high bar. The "inhumanity" that's being opposed here is the overall increase in production & accessibility of what was once a luxury item that we now take for granted as a modern basic good. The "human" take that's being championed here, giraffe_lady, is the supposed moral "goodness" that these machines should never exist at all, with the downstream idea being that there SHOULD be masses of people that toil their lives away in repetitive work.
csomar 4y ago
It delves into conspiracy theory. It ignores that these kind of organizations are still not possible (bunch of elite powerful people making plans for all of earth in order to control them). Most of these phenomena are emergent of human/capital/government interactions; they are not planned.
- EamonnMR 4y ago
  Can you point to where it engages in conspiracy theory?
- emodendroket 4y ago
  I don't think it's a "smoky rooms" kind of thing so much as people naturally perceiving what their class interests are and acting accordingly. Is it a conspiracy theory to suggest farmers, as a group, generally support policies that are beneficial for farming?

"ChatGPT isn't really new but simply an iteration of the class war that's been waged since the start of the industrial revolution." I'm scared too but this is literally neo-ludite sperging.

esjeon 4y ago

This is not entirely ludite. Massive AI models has to be trained on the massive amount of data from the internet, which is built by the entirety of the humankind. However, the profit from those models is not being systemically redistributed to the society. Those AI companies are standing right on a copyright gray zone, and are abusing people's goodwill to benefit only a select few. The social capital that built the internet culture will get dried up, and the internet will become a misery filled with AI-generated low quality contents injected with user-tracking ads.

hypertele-Xii 4y ago
The Internet has already become a misery filled with low quality contents injected with user-tracking ads. Adding "AI-generated" into the phrase doesn't really change much. If you make the argument of scale matters, then I think that'll also democratize art. Photography didn't put artists out of commission, it brought realism as an art form to the hands of the masses. There's plenty of creativity left to be had post-AI. Now an entirely new class of people enter the realm of multi-disciplinary art, since they can compensate for personal deficit in side-fields. The profits from these models go into running them. They don't fit on consumer-grade hardware. However, I do believe that society should subsidise art, and distribute automated wealth somewhat evenly, so I don't even disagree with you. I'm from such society and it's pretty great. "The Internet" is just other people's computers. Don't like AI content? Don't visit those sites. Not every site has ads, either. Hosting is the cheapest it's ever been. It's a curation and reputation issue.
- deely3 4y ago
  > However, I do believe that society should subsidise art, and distribute automated wealth somewhat evenly, so I don't even disagree with you. I'm from such society and it's pretty great. Are you from future or from non-profit DeviantArt community?
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    I'm from Finland where the baseline social security is home, food, heat, water, electricity, Internet, education, and healthcare. There are no starving artists here :)
    - deely3 4y ago
      Oh. Future then. Ok.
dools 4y ago
Yes the odious part is not about how much labour it will eliminate but about how it will take a “commons” and enclose it much the same as pharmaceutical patents have done for folk remedies or the enclosure of common lands.
HDThoreaun 4y ago
You are describing a situation very similar to what the Luddites went through. When the automated clothes making systems showed up they all lost their jobs and the profit went to the capital owners instead of being redistributed to society. It just turns out that technology creates so much value that even without proper distribution it's still an overwhelmingly good thing.
hajile 4y ago
It’s not a “gray zone”. Derivative works are flatly covered by copyright law and this definitely doesn’t meet any of the fair use criteria either.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

As is always pointed out when this comes up, the luddites broke machines as a strategic move to resist the undermining of their class interests and livelihood by workshop owners. So the comparison is correct, but not in the way you mean, and as the luddites were right to break machines then so we are now.

chii 4y ago
They were not right to break the machines. Sometimes the wheels of progress will roll and grind over the bones of those underneath in order to move forward. You just have to hope you get out of the way in time, and cling on as the whole apparatus moves forward.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  Well calling it the “wheels of progress” implies a contentious value judgment they probably would not have agreed with. And sometimes things don’t happen because people decide they’d prefer not to have their bones ground after all and successfully resist.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  This is one of the most inhuman takes I've seen on HN and that's a damn high bar.
  - x-complexity 4y ago
    > > > (y) As is always pointed out when this comes up, the luddites broke machines as a strategic move to resist the undermining of their class interests and livelihood by workshop owners. > > > (y) So the comparison is correct, but not in the way you mean, and as the luddites were right to break machines then so we are now. > > They were not right to break the machines. Sometimes the wheels of progress will roll and grind over the bones of those underneath in order to move forward. You just have to hope you get out of the way in time, and cling on as the whole apparatus moves forward. > (y) This is one of the most inhuman takes I've seen on HN and that's a damn high bar. The "inhumanity" that's being opposed here is the overall increase in production & accessibility of what was once a luxury item that we now take for granted as a modern basic good. The "human" take that's being championed here, giraffe_lady, is the supposed moral "goodness" that these machines should never exist at all, with the downstream idea being that there SHOULD be masses of people that toil their lives away in repetitive work.

csomar 4y ago

It delves into conspiracy theory. It ignores that these kind of organizations are still not possible (bunch of elite powerful people making plans for all of earth in order to control them). Most of these phenomena are emergent of human/capital/government interactions; they are not planned.

EamonnMR 4y ago
Can you point to where it engages in conspiracy theory?
emodendroket 4y ago
I don't think it's a "smoky rooms" kind of thing so much as people naturally perceiving what their class interests are and acting accordingly. Is it a conspiracy theory to suggest farmers, as a group, generally support policies that are beneficial for farming?