4 ms·

I believe it's for the best. The dangers of AI are theoretical. The dangers of corporations being in control aren't.

xpe 4y ago
> The dangers of AI are theoretical. What do you mean by this? Many people throw out the word ‘theoretical’ as some kind of way to imply that something ‘isn’t real’ or worth worrying about. Something might seem implausible until it happens. Gravity waves were once ‘only’ theoretical after all :) There are plenty of AI dystopian predictions, and many of these are possible and impactful. Many of these theories are based on solid understandings of human nature. It is hard to know how technology will evolve, but we have some useful tools to make risk assessments. > The dangers of corporations being in control aren’t. There have been plenty of dystopian predictions about corporate control too. I take the point that we’ve seen them over and over throughout history.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  I'm saying that most predictions about the dystopian AI future are typical of any generation encountering a disruptive technology. They're exaggerated and built from assumptions. They also always seem to conclude that the answer to these problems is to keep these machines centralized in the hands of big companies and governments, which is a very strange conclusion when they tend to get paychecks from those groups. At the extreme end you even get these people talking about AI like it's going to be some monstrous world eating god. All innovation has negative consequence. Television lead to couch potato. 24 7 news. Television stars. Radio killed the local performer. Social media addiction and the erasure of culture and increase of depression. Cars, if you go back far enough, got plenty of criticisms as well. The AI powered future, should it come to exist will have downsides. You'll have a very different landscape to deal with as a creative where your artistic output isn't valued for individual works of art. You'll have very different expectations of how art and media is personalized. It will be hard to trust video or pictures or audio again, because they are so easily faked. Our way of life, as it stands today, will not survive. That's not bad, just different. The AI critical people tend to have some valid criticisms, but at the end of the day their criticisms are rooted in a desire to maintain a status quo until we are "sure it's safe" and that just doesn't fly. We don't know how this will all pan out until we try it, so as we have always done, we will try it and deal with the consequences as they appear.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - xpe 4y ago
    > They also always seem to conclude that the answer to these problems is to keep these machines centralized in the hands of big companies and governments, which is a very strange conclusion when they tend to get paychecks from those groups. I'm not sure who you mean by they. I'd suggest a vast majority of the public mindshare (in the US at least) of technology gone wrong and dystopias come from sci-fi. In general, I have not noticed sci-fi making such conclusions. I rarely notice them drawing any hard conclusions. Readers often come away with a mix of emotions: curiosity, anxiety, excitement, wonder, or simply the joy of stepping outside one's usual reality. What I read and watch tends to paint a picture more than pitch or imply solutions. - 1984 seems to make the opposite point, right? It is the classic example of the surveillance state. as such, it is a counter example of centralized power. - A Scanner Darkly (movie) explore the question of who watches the watchers. It does not paint a pretty picture of the agency doing the surveillance. - The Ministry of the Future shows how a government agency can't really do much without widespread decentralized underground support. As drones get cheaper, civilian activists become terrorists who assassinate climate unfriendly business people. Spoiler alert: it may not fit the pattern of a dystopian novel. - Her (a man falling in love with his OS) explores the personal side in a compelling way.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      By the day I tend to refer to people who are professional AI ethics types. Not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your comment. I would also classify most science fiction as pretty solidly out of touch with what reality is going to look like. It shows us exaggerated aspects of what writers think the future is going to look like, not realistic predictions.
      - xpe 4y ago
        > Not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your comment. I gave examples of sci-fi to show some ways that many people are exposed to thinking about technological futures. Claim : The people influenced by science fiction greatly outnumber the reach of people that get paid to do AI ethics. Agree?
- jiveturkey42 4y ago
  Written word belongs to the scribes at the monasteries, this new 'printing press' will unleash dangers beyond our imagination, people may not trust the authority of the church anymore

xpe 4y ago

> The dangers of AI are theoretical. What do you mean by this? Many people throw out the word ‘theoretical’ as some kind of way to imply that something ‘isn’t real’ or worth worrying about. Something might seem implausible until it happens. Gravity waves were once ‘only’ theoretical after all :) There are plenty of AI dystopian predictions, and many of these are possible and impactful. Many of these theories are based on solid understandings of human nature. It is hard to know how technology will evolve, but we have some useful tools to make risk assessments. > The dangers of corporations being in control aren’t. There have been plenty of dystopian predictions about corporate control too. I take the point that we’ve seen them over and over throughout history.

bioemerl 4y ago
I'm saying that most predictions about the dystopian AI future are typical of any generation encountering a disruptive technology. They're exaggerated and built from assumptions. They also always seem to conclude that the answer to these problems is to keep these machines centralized in the hands of big companies and governments, which is a very strange conclusion when they tend to get paychecks from those groups. At the extreme end you even get these people talking about AI like it's going to be some monstrous world eating god. All innovation has negative consequence. Television lead to couch potato. 24 7 news. Television stars. Radio killed the local performer. Social media addiction and the erasure of culture and increase of depression. Cars, if you go back far enough, got plenty of criticisms as well. The AI powered future, should it come to exist will have downsides. You'll have a very different landscape to deal with as a creative where your artistic output isn't valued for individual works of art. You'll have very different expectations of how art and media is personalized. It will be hard to trust video or pictures or audio again, because they are so easily faked. Our way of life, as it stands today, will not survive. That's not bad, just different. The AI critical people tend to have some valid criticisms, but at the end of the day their criticisms are rooted in a desire to maintain a status quo until we are "sure it's safe" and that just doesn't fly. We don't know how this will all pan out until we try it, so as we have always done, we will try it and deal with the consequences as they appear.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- xpe 4y ago
  > They also always seem to conclude that the answer to these problems is to keep these machines centralized in the hands of big companies and governments, which is a very strange conclusion when they tend to get paychecks from those groups. I'm not sure who you mean by they. I'd suggest a vast majority of the public mindshare (in the US at least) of technology gone wrong and dystopias come from sci-fi. In general, I have not noticed sci-fi making such conclusions. I rarely notice them drawing any hard conclusions. Readers often come away with a mix of emotions: curiosity, anxiety, excitement, wonder, or simply the joy of stepping outside one's usual reality. What I read and watch tends to paint a picture more than pitch or imply solutions. - 1984 seems to make the opposite point, right? It is the classic example of the surveillance state. as such, it is a counter example of centralized power. - A Scanner Darkly (movie) explore the question of who watches the watchers. It does not paint a pretty picture of the agency doing the surveillance. - The Ministry of the Future shows how a government agency can't really do much without widespread decentralized underground support. As drones get cheaper, civilian activists become terrorists who assassinate climate unfriendly business people. Spoiler alert: it may not fit the pattern of a dystopian novel. - Her (a man falling in love with his OS) explores the personal side in a compelling way.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    By the day I tend to refer to people who are professional AI ethics types. Not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your comment. I would also classify most science fiction as pretty solidly out of touch with what reality is going to look like. It shows us exaggerated aspects of what writers think the future is going to look like, not realistic predictions.
    - xpe 4y ago
      > Not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your comment. I gave examples of sci-fi to show some ways that many people are exposed to thinking about technological futures. Claim : The people influenced by science fiction greatly outnumber the reach of people that get paid to do AI ethics. Agree?
jiveturkey42 4y ago
Written word belongs to the scribes at the monasteries, this new 'printing press' will unleash dangers beyond our imagination, people may not trust the authority of the church anymore