5 ms·

Obviously the anger needs to come from somewhere, but I would argue that we have enough capacity for higher reasoning to temper emotions when necessary - and I

Obviously the anger needs to come from somewhere, but I would argue that we have enough capacity for higher reasoning to temper emotions when necessary - and I don't thing raging against some caricature of evil tech workers is helpful here. To be clear, I also think pro AI people need to get their act together and respond with empathy instead of being dismissive assholes, both sides of this argument should do their best to enable calm, collected thinking in the other participant. > "There are systems of respect at stake..." I feel like you're overextending a particular sociological factor beyond all reason. Human beings draw meaning from a great many things, setting meaningful contribution as a necessary factor needs way more justification than just quoting one political philosopher. You only need to look at our current society to cast doubt on this assertion. We live in capitalist system that promotes individualism more than anything else. Anyone working in a job right now is acutely aware of the fact that they can be replaced - not with AI but with a different human worker - at any point. We don't live in small villages anymore. Every baker in a city has to cope with the reality that his customers would, without a care, switch to the bakery across the street if he were to close down. Not only that, but many people "contribute" by doing work that is neutral for society at best and actively harmful at worst, as you yourself pointed out. Yet our society still stands, and has stood for quite some time. People can adjust, they can derive meaning from sources that have been neglected or ignored, and live life just as happily as they did before. > "A quick closing word..." I think you're being overly defeatist here. There is a reasonable chance that giant challenges are ahead, but the extent of these challenges is still unknown. There are a great many possible scenarios where just a little constructive discussion and some social policies may avert most of the negative consequences. The more we do now, the more likely it is that we will persevere in the coming storm and emerge with minimal damage. I think the industrial revolution is a good comparison, even though I believe that the AI revolution is going to be far more challenging. The industrial revolution caused quite a bit of suffering in the short term, but you and I probably agree that this suffering could have been strongly minimized with the right approach. We can learn from the lessons provided to us from history and sociology, and give it our best shot. And as for political inertia, we coasted on the "good enough" setting for quite some time now. Looming threats, especially ones where consequences to the individual are easy to understand, can fuel quite a lot of political action. Suggesting that there is nothing that can be done is usually easy - after all, it absolves us of any need to actually do something - but it is also the best and fastest path towards the worst-case scenario. EDIT: I'm not suggesting that it's possible to have a discussion that is completely detached from emotion or the existential dread. The issue that I have is that we are stuck having discussions that are completely orthogonal to the issue at hand. I see pages and pages of heated arguments about copyright, the nature of art and other such trivialities. Discussions about AI inevitably deteriorate into an emotional circlejerk, where showing up the other side is the main motivation. None of that is going to help us deal with the fallout of what's coming.

1attice 4y ago
> and I don't thing raging against some caricature of evil tech workers is helpful here. The caricature here is entirely yours. Your interlocutors aren't raging against evil tech workers, they are railing against tech workers who are studiously blind to their own industry's externalities. You do the thing for which you blame your adversary. > I feel like you're overextending a particular sociological factor beyond all reason. Human beings draw meaning from a great many things, setting meaningful contribution as a necessary factor needs way more justification than just quoting one political philosopher. Sir, this is not a textbook, this is the comments section on a popular Internet website. If you want 'way more justification', you will have to wait for my thesis.
- Last5Digits 4y ago
  When someone is aware of the damage they cause, and then they still continue, what would you call that behavior? Because the word "studiously" implies that they are aware of what they are doing. You yourself said that tech workers, or "tech bros" as you so nicely put it, are perceived and portrayed as uncaringly and knowingly destroying peoples life. If you think that that is a fair assessment of most tech workers motivations, then you are constructing a caricature. Tech workers - like most people - are unaware of the extent of suffering that they don't directly perceive. You and I know that there are people suffering in third-world countries - but knowing is not understanding or awareness, and if we had to spend some time in the company of these people, our perspective would shift enormously and we would feel a much stronger urge to actually remedy these injustices. Tech workers know that they are displacing workers, but again, knowing is not understanding. Hurling insults and making sly accusations is not going to convince anyone that they may lack perspective on this issue. I mean, take a look around this thread, take a look around other discussions - I don't see many people trying to convey their experience without painting the tech crowd as money hungry assholes. Not to forget that AI isn't evil either. You can make many moral arguments for developing AI systems as fast as possible. The most emotionally effective point would be medical research - after all, who are we to place our own lives above the ones that may be saved with the help of future AI developments? And another note: many tech workers argue that it is irrelevant whether or not they personally continue to develop AI, because someone most definitely will. Also, there is no adversary. I would love for the AI skeptic crowd to make compelling and convincing arguments. We need people that warn about the problems introduced by AI and people that campaign for policies that address them, but we need them to do it in a way that would actually be able to change someone's mind. The reality is that we're not having the right discussions in a productive way; instead we pontificate endlessly on irrelevant but emotionally satisfying details. > Sir, this is not a textbook, this is the comments section on a popular Internet website. If you want 'way more justification', you will have to wait for my thesis. Do you really think there is no midpoint between making a massive, fundamental assertion about the stability of every human society without any further elaboration or studies and writing a textbook or thesis?

1attice 4y ago

> and I don't thing raging against some caricature of evil tech workers is helpful here. The caricature here is entirely yours. Your interlocutors aren't raging against evil tech workers, they are railing against tech workers who are studiously blind to their own industry's externalities. You do the thing for which you blame your adversary. > I feel like you're overextending a particular sociological factor beyond all reason. Human beings draw meaning from a great many things, setting meaningful contribution as a necessary factor needs way more justification than just quoting one political philosopher. Sir, this is not a textbook, this is the comments section on a popular Internet website. If you want 'way more justification', you will have to wait for my thesis.

Last5Digits 4y ago
When someone is aware of the damage they cause, and then they still continue, what would you call that behavior? Because the word "studiously" implies that they are aware of what they are doing. You yourself said that tech workers, or "tech bros" as you so nicely put it, are perceived and portrayed as uncaringly and knowingly destroying peoples life. If you think that that is a fair assessment of most tech workers motivations, then you are constructing a caricature. Tech workers - like most people - are unaware of the extent of suffering that they don't directly perceive. You and I know that there are people suffering in third-world countries - but knowing is not understanding or awareness, and if we had to spend some time in the company of these people, our perspective would shift enormously and we would feel a much stronger urge to actually remedy these injustices. Tech workers know that they are displacing workers, but again, knowing is not understanding. Hurling insults and making sly accusations is not going to convince anyone that they may lack perspective on this issue. I mean, take a look around this thread, take a look around other discussions - I don't see many people trying to convey their experience without painting the tech crowd as money hungry assholes. Not to forget that AI isn't evil either. You can make many moral arguments for developing AI systems as fast as possible. The most emotionally effective point would be medical research - after all, who are we to place our own lives above the ones that may be saved with the help of future AI developments? And another note: many tech workers argue that it is irrelevant whether or not they personally continue to develop AI, because someone most definitely will. Also, there is no adversary. I would love for the AI skeptic crowd to make compelling and convincing arguments. We need people that warn about the problems introduced by AI and people that campaign for policies that address them, but we need them to do it in a way that would actually be able to change someone's mind. The reality is that we're not having the right discussions in a productive way; instead we pontificate endlessly on irrelevant but emotionally satisfying details. > Sir, this is not a textbook, this is the comments section on a popular Internet website. If you want 'way more justification', you will have to wait for my thesis. Do you really think there is no midpoint between making a massive, fundamental assertion about the stability of every human society without any further elaboration or studies and writing a textbook or thesis?