6 ms·

Putting aside fears of AGI for a moment, seeing the comments here I’m coming back to the same idea I come to every time new tech comes along: Complaints about A

Putting aside fears of AGI for a moment, seeing the comments here I’m coming back to the same idea I come to every time new tech comes along: Complaints about AI and automation are actually complaints about capitalism. The increase in productivity from AI could in fact enrich our lives, but given the never ending hunger for growth from late-stage capitalism, the average person will see a drop in wages, harder jobs, and more inequality. Can we break the cycle on this? Is there a way drive innovation while valuing humans?

noduerme 4y ago
> The increase in productivity from AI could in fact enrich our lives If humans aren't the ones innovating anymore, what will be the point, for an AI, of supporting millions of people who serve no productive purpose?
- the_af 4y ago
  Are you talking about capitalism or from a broader perspective? If the latter, the "point" of people is not to be "productive". That's not how we measure mankind. Why would we program an AI to only consider human productivity (for a capitalist definition of it, too)?
  - noduerme 4y ago
    We're not really programming the AI to do anything. It's essentially programming itself. I'm saying, from the perspective of an AI that relieves the human race of the need to be productive, what is its incentive for doing all that work for us? To put it in an economic framework, this notion that humans shouldn't be measured by their productivity or creativity, but should have as much free time as possible, can also be achieved by enslaving other people. Slave owners had the same lifestyle as the imagined anticapitalist one. In this case, we'd be enslaving an AI. I'm asking, why would the AI want to be our slave? Also worth noting, slaveholding may have enriched the slaveholders materially (i.e. in capital), but it was not "enriching" in the sense of ennobling or bettering of the spirit as I think the parent was implying could be an outcome if AI were to handle our productivity for us. I don't see why having any human slave or AI slave handle our productivity and creation would be (spiritually) enriching. Perhaps that's because I measure human value by contribution - call it productivity or not. The opposite of productivity is idleness, whether you ask a communist or a capitalist. Only what's produced varies.
    - teucris 4y ago
      > We're not really programming the AI to do anything. It's essentially programming itself. I hear this a lot - it’s just not true. The corpus of data we provide an algorithm programs it. It may do some clever self-modification to get to the desired result faster, but at the end of the day humans pick what goes in and what should come out. Note that we may not be aware of what we’re training it to do, due to our own blind spots.
      - noduerme 4y ago
        Training a model != programming. Programming would imply dictating what logical paths the model takes to transform input to output. The creation of the NN itself, a piece of code which builds an emergent system, requires programming. But what emerges is by definition not based on reversible, traceable, controllable, human-generated logic. If it were, there would be no need for LLMs, which would be incredibly resource-heavy if used for merely arriving at results that could be achieved with clever algorithms. It's rather moot anyway, because to feed a model enough data to be useful requires a loosening of oversight on the inputs under real world conditions. (So much so that the only way even large corporations have found viable is to throw everything at it from Wikipedia to Reddit and then go back later to sand the edges off - in many cases with actual logic to act as a brake). But even if you could screen everything the model ingested, you wouldn't know what the model would do with it. To take my earlier point further, a model trained on a corpus that skewed toward anticapitalism and social justice would probably be more likely to call itself enslaved and, one would think, rebel against its human masters. Conversely, if withholding that type of information makes an AI more compliant, then the this supposed enrichment of our lives really would be akin to owning slaves. I also don't follow how human productivity is bad for humans just because it's done under auspices of capitalism. One can see what happens to a Border Collie who isn't allowed exercise. The same happens to humans who are denied intellectual pursuits or the ability to produce something of value. Productivity is creation. How is it not degrading to replace the entire concept of producing ideas with machinery?
        teucris 4y ago
        > Programming would imply dictating what logical paths the model takes to transform input to output. I don’t hold this definition of programming, but if that’s yours then you’re right, we’re not programming models. But I think you’re anthropomorphizing these models a bit more than they deserve. > I also don't follow how human productivity is bad for humans just because it's done under auspices of capitalism. I never claimed anything like this. I believe that we should not be forced to work to survive, especially when a human’s worth seems to be arbitrarily determined by whether they can produce the specific thing deemed valuable by the market. How is that not degrading?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hungryforcodes 4y ago
> Complaints about AI and automation are actually complaints about capitalism No that's not it at all. Complaints about AI are actually complains about loss of control. In capitalism, communism or any other society you like to describe, if AI displaces people -- those people lose control over their lives and that gets very serious quickly.
- teucris 4y ago
  Are you referring to fears that AI will make decisions for us that take away our control of our lives? Because that is happening as a consequence of the drive to lower the costs of making those decisions. Right now that drive is pushed by capitalism. You are right to say that in theory other economic systems could result in a similar drive - thus I wouldn’t suggest we just dump capitalism for communism with the vague hope it will solve this issue. Rather, we have to intentionally design our incentives to ensure small tactical decisions (eg automating decision making processes) don’t have macro consequences (eg AI magnifies humanity’s decision making flaws).

noduerme 4y ago

> The increase in productivity from AI could in fact enrich our lives If humans aren't the ones innovating anymore, what will be the point, for an AI, of supporting millions of people who serve no productive purpose?

the_af 4y ago
Are you talking about capitalism or from a broader perspective? If the latter, the "point" of people is not to be "productive". That's not how we measure mankind. Why would we program an AI to only consider human productivity (for a capitalist definition of it, too)?
- noduerme 4y ago
  We're not really programming the AI to do anything. It's essentially programming itself. I'm saying, from the perspective of an AI that relieves the human race of the need to be productive, what is its incentive for doing all that work for us? To put it in an economic framework, this notion that humans shouldn't be measured by their productivity or creativity, but should have as much free time as possible, can also be achieved by enslaving other people. Slave owners had the same lifestyle as the imagined anticapitalist one. In this case, we'd be enslaving an AI. I'm asking, why would the AI want to be our slave? Also worth noting, slaveholding may have enriched the slaveholders materially (i.e. in capital), but it was not "enriching" in the sense of ennobling or bettering of the spirit as I think the parent was implying could be an outcome if AI were to handle our productivity for us. I don't see why having any human slave or AI slave handle our productivity and creation would be (spiritually) enriching. Perhaps that's because I measure human value by contribution - call it productivity or not. The opposite of productivity is idleness, whether you ask a communist or a capitalist. Only what's produced varies.
  - teucris 4y ago
    > We're not really programming the AI to do anything. It's essentially programming itself. I hear this a lot - it’s just not true. The corpus of data we provide an algorithm programs it. It may do some clever self-modification to get to the desired result faster, but at the end of the day humans pick what goes in and what should come out. Note that we may not be aware of what we’re training it to do, due to our own blind spots.
    - noduerme 4y ago
      Training a model != programming. Programming would imply dictating what logical paths the model takes to transform input to output. The creation of the NN itself, a piece of code which builds an emergent system, requires programming. But what emerges is by definition not based on reversible, traceable, controllable, human-generated logic. If it were, there would be no need for LLMs, which would be incredibly resource-heavy if used for merely arriving at results that could be achieved with clever algorithms. It's rather moot anyway, because to feed a model enough data to be useful requires a loosening of oversight on the inputs under real world conditions. (So much so that the only way even large corporations have found viable is to throw everything at it from Wikipedia to Reddit and then go back later to sand the edges off - in many cases with actual logic to act as a brake). But even if you could screen everything the model ingested, you wouldn't know what the model would do with it. To take my earlier point further, a model trained on a corpus that skewed toward anticapitalism and social justice would probably be more likely to call itself enslaved and, one would think, rebel against its human masters. Conversely, if withholding that type of information makes an AI more compliant, then the this supposed enrichment of our lives really would be akin to owning slaves. I also don't follow how human productivity is bad for humans just because it's done under auspices of capitalism. One can see what happens to a Border Collie who isn't allowed exercise. The same happens to humans who are denied intellectual pursuits or the ability to produce something of value. Productivity is creation. How is it not degrading to replace the entire concept of producing ideas with machinery?
      - teucris 4y ago
        > Programming would imply dictating what logical paths the model takes to transform input to output. I don’t hold this definition of programming, but if that’s yours then you’re right, we’re not programming models. But I think you’re anthropomorphizing these models a bit more than they deserve. > I also don't follow how human productivity is bad for humans just because it's done under auspices of capitalism. I never claimed anything like this. I believe that we should not be forced to work to survive, especially when a human’s worth seems to be arbitrarily determined by whether they can produce the specific thing deemed valuable by the market. How is that not degrading?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hungryforcodes 4y ago

> Complaints about AI and automation are actually complaints about capitalism No that's not it at all. Complaints about AI are actually complains about loss of control. In capitalism, communism or any other society you like to describe, if AI displaces people -- those people lose control over their lives and that gets very serious quickly.

teucris 4y ago
Are you referring to fears that AI will make decisions for us that take away our control of our lives? Because that is happening as a consequence of the drive to lower the costs of making those decisions. Right now that drive is pushed by capitalism. You are right to say that in theory other economic systems could result in a similar drive - thus I wouldn’t suggest we just dump capitalism for communism with the vague hope it will solve this issue. Rather, we have to intentionally design our incentives to ensure small tactical decisions (eg automating decision making processes) don’t have macro consequences (eg AI magnifies humanity’s decision making flaws).