5 ms·

Anyone questioning the author's intention should read one of his books, "Who Owns the Future?" It was written sometime ago, and I think Sam Altman read it as a

Anyone questioning the author's intention should read one of his books, "Who Owns the Future?" It was written sometime ago, and I think Sam Altman read it as a handbook on power concentration using AI rather than the human-centric approach it was laying out. Personally I wish Lanier wasn't as right about many things as he is, because I lose a little faith in humanity each time.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
I have nothing but respect for the chap. I never wanted to respect him, as I always thought he was one of those "too good to be true" people, and was mostly a paper tiger. It turns out that he's the real deal, and has been right about a lot of stuff.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  Such as? I have my skepticism too.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    I’m not particularly interested in going into a back-and-forth on this. He’s sort of like Edward Tufte; lots of ego, but earned, and not for everyone. I like your job title. Always up for more “human,” in our design.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  There are lots of parallels between Jaron Lanier and Richard Stallman. Cory Doctorow is another one I would put in that list, as well as SF writer Charles Stross. They are all pretty good at looking ahead.
worldsayshi 4y ago
I feel that if smart people spent more time writing books about how good outcomes could come about rather than warning about bad outcomes powerful actors wouldn't have so many dystopian handbooks lying around and might reach for those positive books instead.
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  "Who Owns the Future?" is exactly a book about developing good outcomes, and building a future that supports humanity and happiness. But you can also read it at an obtuse angle and see the problems outlined to resolve as opportunities for personal gain. It's just a matter of perspective.
  - worldsayshi 4y ago
    Glad to hear. I will put it on my list.
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  It's way easier to write believable dystopian novels because you are deconstructing what already is rather than building something new. The smart ones are the ones capable of writing the utopian novels.
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    I was about to comment the same thing. It's simply much harder to create from whole cloth positive visions for the future where dystopias can be immediately be extrapolated from existing trends (and our long human history of abuse, horror, and destruction). Edit: If anyone would like an example, I'll offer Huxley's "The Island" as a utopian counterpoint to his "Brave New World". In addition to exploring the qualities he believe make up a 'utopia', a significant thematic concern is the need for channeling our innate destructive impulses* because utopia - should it exist - can only be maintained, not manufactured, through the active preservation/conservation of our natural world, our positive human values, etc. *for example, there is an innate human impulse to subjugate others. Huxley suggested that we should channel, rather than suppress, this impulse into a productive activity that satisfies the desire without causing harm: rock climbing (which must have been much more of a niche activity in 1962).
    - skinpop 4y ago
      easier to imagine the end of world than the end of capitalism...
13years 4y ago
I actually agree with his perspective. AI is simply a another huge leap in technology that directly affects social order. We only need to look at the effects social media has had on society and just amplify them to perceive what may be likely outcomes. This aligns very close to my own thoughts that I have written about in great detail. I foresee the societal impacts to be exceedingly disturbing long before we ever reach the concept of a Singularity. https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things
- ChancyChance 4y ago
  Regulation of social media is still woefully behind even in cases where we do know there has been a hugely negative impact (Myanmar & Facebook, for example). And there are approximately 5 people who exert massive, unregulated power over the shaping of planetary discourse (social media CEOs). If social media is too big to regulate, AI regulation doesn't have a chance in hell.
  - 13years 4y ago
    Yes, additionally I find it somewhat ironic that AI researchers talk a lot about "power seeking" behavior of AI as a primary concern. However, seemingly overlooked, AI is itself power and we should expect that "power seeking" humans will inevitably become its custodian.
    - nonbirithm 4y ago
      This a thousand million times. The mislabeling of LLMs and diffusion models as "artificial intelligence" is probably the biggest marketing blunder in the history of technological progress, one that could ironically affect the course of AI alignment itself. Smart thinkers and policymakers are going to waste their time framing the problems the tech poses in terms of "an uncontrollable intelligence out to get us" like it's some kind of sentient overlord completely separate from humanity. But super-advanced technology that can operate in a closed loop (which could be called AGI depending on who's asked) isn't necessary for humanity to crater itself. What's required for such tech to come into existence in the first place? Humans. Who's going to be using it the whole time? Humans. And I think there's still a lot of disruptive, world-changing tech to be discovered before AGI is even a remote possibility. In reality this tech is probably going to be more like a superpowered exoskeleton for CEOs, politicians and the like to sway public discourse in their favor. "An uncontrollable intelligence" already describes the source of a lot of our current problems... that is, ourselves.
favaq 4y ago
Funny that if you google "Who Owns the Future", the Google featured snippet says the answer is Jaron Lanier.
vlod 4y ago
~22 minute interview [0] by Jaron about "Who Owns the Future?" [0]: https://youtu.be/XdEuII9cv-U?t=172 https://youtu.be/XdEuII9cv-U?t=172
theGnuMe 4y ago
I just picked this up on your recommendation. Amazing. This guy is the digital version of Piketty if that makes any sense.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago

I have nothing but respect for the chap. I never wanted to respect him, as I always thought he was one of those "too good to be true" people, and was mostly a paper tiger. It turns out that he's the real deal, and has been right about a lot of stuff.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
Such as? I have my skepticism too.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  I’m not particularly interested in going into a back-and-forth on this. He’s sort of like Edward Tufte; lots of ego, but earned, and not for everyone. I like your job title. Always up for more “human,” in our design.
jacquesm 4y ago
There are lots of parallels between Jaron Lanier and Richard Stallman. Cory Doctorow is another one I would put in that list, as well as SF writer Charles Stross. They are all pretty good at looking ahead.

worldsayshi 4y ago

I feel that if smart people spent more time writing books about how good outcomes could come about rather than warning about bad outcomes powerful actors wouldn't have so many dystopian handbooks lying around and might reach for those positive books instead.

sirsinsalot 4y ago
"Who Owns the Future?" is exactly a book about developing good outcomes, and building a future that supports humanity and happiness. But you can also read it at an obtuse angle and see the problems outlined to resolve as opportunities for personal gain. It's just a matter of perspective.
- worldsayshi 4y ago
  Glad to hear. I will put it on my list.
birdyrooster 4y ago
It's way easier to write believable dystopian novels because you are deconstructing what already is rather than building something new. The smart ones are the ones capable of writing the utopian novels.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  I was about to comment the same thing. It's simply much harder to create from whole cloth positive visions for the future where dystopias can be immediately be extrapolated from existing trends (and our long human history of abuse, horror, and destruction). Edit: If anyone would like an example, I'll offer Huxley's "The Island" as a utopian counterpoint to his "Brave New World". In addition to exploring the qualities he believe make up a 'utopia', a significant thematic concern is the need for channeling our innate destructive impulses* because utopia - should it exist - can only be maintained, not manufactured, through the active preservation/conservation of our natural world, our positive human values, etc. *for example, there is an innate human impulse to subjugate others. Huxley suggested that we should channel, rather than suppress, this impulse into a productive activity that satisfies the desire without causing harm: rock climbing (which must have been much more of a niche activity in 1962).
  - skinpop 4y ago
    easier to imagine the end of world than the end of capitalism...

13years 4y ago

I actually agree with his perspective. AI is simply a another huge leap in technology that directly affects social order. We only need to look at the effects social media has had on society and just amplify them to perceive what may be likely outcomes. This aligns very close to my own thoughts that I have written about in great detail. I foresee the societal impacts to be exceedingly disturbing long before we ever reach the concept of a Singularity. https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things

ChancyChance 4y ago
Regulation of social media is still woefully behind even in cases where we do know there has been a hugely negative impact (Myanmar & Facebook, for example). And there are approximately 5 people who exert massive, unregulated power over the shaping of planetary discourse (social media CEOs). If social media is too big to regulate, AI regulation doesn't have a chance in hell.
- 13years 4y ago
  Yes, additionally I find it somewhat ironic that AI researchers talk a lot about "power seeking" behavior of AI as a primary concern. However, seemingly overlooked, AI is itself power and we should expect that "power seeking" humans will inevitably become its custodian.
  - nonbirithm 4y ago
    This a thousand million times. The mislabeling of LLMs and diffusion models as "artificial intelligence" is probably the biggest marketing blunder in the history of technological progress, one that could ironically affect the course of AI alignment itself. Smart thinkers and policymakers are going to waste their time framing the problems the tech poses in terms of "an uncontrollable intelligence out to get us" like it's some kind of sentient overlord completely separate from humanity. But super-advanced technology that can operate in a closed loop (which could be called AGI depending on who's asked) isn't necessary for humanity to crater itself. What's required for such tech to come into existence in the first place? Humans. Who's going to be using it the whole time? Humans. And I think there's still a lot of disruptive, world-changing tech to be discovered before AGI is even a remote possibility. In reality this tech is probably going to be more like a superpowered exoskeleton for CEOs, politicians and the like to sway public discourse in their favor. "An uncontrollable intelligence" already describes the source of a lot of our current problems... that is, ourselves.

favaq 4y ago

Funny that if you google "Who Owns the Future", the Google featured snippet says the answer is Jaron Lanier.

vlod 4y ago

~22 minute interview [0] by Jaron about "Who Owns the Future?" [0]: https://youtu.be/XdEuII9cv-U?t=172 https://youtu.be/XdEuII9cv-U?t=172

theGnuMe 4y ago

I just picked this up on your recommendation. Amazing. This guy is the digital version of Piketty if that makes any sense.