3 ms·

I’m on the fence. The problem with AI doomsday statements is that they don’t lead to any productive discussion, because nothing specific is discussed. The form

I’m on the fence. The problem with AI doomsday statements is that they don’t lead to any productive discussion, because nothing specific is discussed. The format needs to be changed if we don’t want it to become religion. Pose realistic scenarios and open them for discussion. Let’s discuss specific things, rather than muse at powerful technology and assume it will be bad. At least AI enthusiasts are excited about specific things that can be critiqued and analyzed. They might be deluded in their excitement, but it’s not religion.

haswell 4y ago
I generally agree, but think there are some signals worth paying attention to. I think the anti-AI crowd is concerned, because the very meaning of artwork and writing, two foundational elements of human creative expression and experiences, have been thrown into question and turmoil in just a matter of months. Setting aside for a moment any hypothetical extinction-type concerns in the far future, I think there is a very understandable sentiment that is not borne of any doom mongering, but is based in the very real concerns, unknowns, and problems that have not yet been integrated or solved in the AI tech that is here right now. I know that my personal feeling of unease stems from this deep concern that we've only barely started to grapple with the implications of generative AI, and it seems unwise to dive headfirst into net-new territory that is arguably far more treacherous. It is Silicon Valley's default to move fast and break things. But when those things are the very foundations of culture and communication, the consequences of breaking things play out on a world-wide scale. The geeks truly have inherited the earth, and hopefully we will not destroy it. If there was ever a moment to question our default intuitions about the importance of progress above all else, this would be that moment. Yes, people need to bring their real-world concerns to the table, but it's also understandable that with the current pace of change, it's hard for anyone to get their arms around what those concerns are. In light of this, this needs to be an all-hands-on-deck kind of exploration. People should bring them, and practitioners should actively seek them out.

haswell 4y ago

I generally agree, but think there are some signals worth paying attention to. I think the anti-AI crowd is concerned, because the very meaning of artwork and writing, two foundational elements of human creative expression and experiences, have been thrown into question and turmoil in just a matter of months. Setting aside for a moment any hypothetical extinction-type concerns in the far future, I think there is a very understandable sentiment that is not borne of any doom mongering, but is based in the very real concerns, unknowns, and problems that have not yet been integrated or solved in the AI tech that is here right now. I know that my personal feeling of unease stems from this deep concern that we've only barely started to grapple with the implications of generative AI, and it seems unwise to dive headfirst into net-new territory that is arguably far more treacherous. It is Silicon Valley's default to move fast and break things. But when those things are the very foundations of culture and communication, the consequences of breaking things play out on a world-wide scale. The geeks truly have inherited the earth, and hopefully we will not destroy it. If there was ever a moment to question our default intuitions about the importance of progress above all else, this would be that moment. Yes, people need to bring their real-world concerns to the table, but it's also understandable that with the current pace of change, it's hard for anyone to get their arms around what those concerns are. In light of this, this needs to be an all-hands-on-deck kind of exploration. People should bring them, and practitioners should actively seek them out.