4 ms·

At some level it’s tautological. Initially I had a similar negative reaction other commenters had, but I think I’m deciding I like the people framing. Obviously

by dahart 4y ago

At some level it’s tautological. Initially I had a similar negative reaction other commenters had, but I think I’m deciding I like the people framing. Obviously this is not an either-or. It’s not a question of AI vs people, it’s both AI+people. But only people are making the choices. People are building AI, people who can use AI will choose to use it, and people who run businesses will choose to allow it and/or incorporate it. Just like jobs lost to immigration and/or outsourcing, the jobs aren’t being stolen, they’re being intentionally given to cheaper alternatives, by business people, without much worry about the consequences. It’s healthy for us to think about the AI revolution as a social & economic choice, because that’s what it really is.

Herval_freire 4y ago
No it's not healthy in my opinion. A drug addict doesn't exactly have a choice when he uses drugs. Aspects of human behavior in aggregate are so predictable it's basically deterministic. If AI one day matches or surpasses human intelligence it is obvious humanity will exploit that AI as it already is doing now. There is no actual "choice" here. Just an illusion of it.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  We've changed collective human behavior before though, outlawed slavery etc.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    And yet, even in countries where slavery is outlawed, it's still done - sometimes out in the open, sometimes behind closed doors. e.g. the US, where people in jail are exempt from all our progressive slave labor laws.
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      Be that as it may, the collective behavior and shape of society has undeniably changed.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        Has it? Because when I look at humanity over the ages, I see a select few using technology and violence to exert power and influence over the great many to further their own desires. I don't see that changing in the future anytime soon, especially before AI gets to be the next technology in a long line of technology used to oppress and inflict violence on others.
        fnimick 4y ago
        Aren't you excited to take the human element out of the loop of enforcing property ownership rights? In China, in Tianenmen, they had to bring in forces from the countryside because the city police wouldn't fire on their neighbors. AI won't have any restrictions or morals. An AI-powered law enforcement force would gun down every single person in a city if authorities called for it.
        redleggedfrog 4y ago
        This is the future - maybe not everywhere, and probably not soon, but it is an eventuality. Also, AI will be treated like encryption - it will become a munition, with the same type of restrictions as munitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...). Governments will keep the best AI for themselves, leaving the goof-nuts ChatGPT type stuff for private citizens. Then the question becomes did those gun downed humans deserve what they got? And did that massacre result in a greater good? Those are the not-so-pleasant questions the humans will have to ask themselves (probably using AI to help, ironically).
        fnimick 4y ago
        The real question in my mind is, does democracy survive once the top 1% has a complete and unquestioned monopoly on violence and power? I don't think so.
        4y ago
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - Herval_freire 4y ago
    This is a good point. The civil war like the drug war though are choices made after an inevitable plunge onto the predictable path. Both choices had a high cost and were incredibly hard to make. It was also predictably a delayed response with varying levels of limited effectiveness.
- dahart 4y ago
  Initially I didn’t like the drug addict analogy, but maybe it’s a good one, maybe you’re right. A drug addict did have a choice, and exercised it, and addiction was the consequence. With AI we’re at the first stage where we’re not yet addicted, but once we become addicted, it will be very very hard to wean ourselves off of it if/when we find out it’s doing more damage than good. We do have a choice right now, but you might be right that we’ll lose it soon.
  - schwartzworld 4y ago
    > A drug addict did have a choice, and exercised it, and addiction was the consequence This sort of disregards the large percentage of people who get hooked on drugs while recovering from injuries or medical issues. After marijuana, pain killers are the second most abused illegal substance.
    - dahart 4y ago
      That’s fair, you’re totally right. But, this is exposing why the drug addict analogy isn’t a great analogy relative to use of AI. I went along with it to find common ground, but I don’t believe the existence of drug addicts are evidence that we lack any choice when it comes to building, deploying, or using AI, like @Herval_freire implied. Do you? I think we do have the freedom to exercise caution, or regulate the use of certain dangerous machines, if we want.
      - Herval_freire 4y ago
        We lack choice in aggregate. As an individual you have the choice of doing a drug. If I talk about a population of people and I introduce highly addictive drugs to a population of people, then it's almost a guarantee that part of that population will get addicted. In this sense it is not a choice. For AI, if I introduce AI to a population of people then for sure part of the population will exploit and use AI. Logically speaking in order to compete, others will have to start using it as well.
        4y ago
- mdkfof9rl 4y ago
  Good thing LLMs don't have any intelligence at all, since they lack agency. We're no closer to AI that can be meaningfully exploited than we were when Asimov dreamt up the positronic brain
  - dsign 4y ago
    I'm not sure if you are talking seriously or ironically, so I will assume the former. Agency is a wonderful thing to have. But it's not as difficult to realize as getting something to be good at general intellectual tasks. Just built into the system a goal of utmost priority which is "to survive", and everything follows. There is a (slight) chance that it is not as easy as that, but I wouldn't bank anything on that chance.
ajmurmann 4y ago
Comparing to outsourcing or, even less fitting, immigration is a terrible analogy. Those jobs and their income go to other humans. Other humans who will consume goods and services, this is especially true for immigration. I'd also argue that offshoring is morally positive because it moves the work and associated income to where people need it more, that's why the labor is cheaper there Both automation and global movement of goods and workers increase productivity which is highly desired. However, automation allows for the owner of the goods of production to retain much more of the value created. This leads to higher wealth concentration. I'm fine with some people being super rich, but I'm worried about there floor. IMO, we need something like UBI to raise the floor. Leaving AI assignment concerns aside, I'd be incredibly excited if the productivity gains from AI were to somehow be used to raise the floor for everyone on the planet. Instead I'm worried that we'll see more unemployment or more low-payed gig/service work on which, in the US, people might struggle to afford basic things like health care, housing and education for their children. Edit: This also carries a high risk of getting some form of violent revolution, or more push towards a too extreme solution like communism. After all communism was born as a response to the automation of the industrial revolution.
- dahart 4y ago
  Okay, it’s not a perfect analogy, but from the perspective of a business owner, the choice is to put money into something expensive like local human labor, or something cheaper whether it’s remote labor or automation of some kind. Lots of tools have been accused of stealing jobs over the years, from factory machines to vehicles to computers. In that sense, I’m only borrowing an analogy with a long rich tradition. The wealth concentration difference between labor and machines is one of the systemic outcomes, it’s one of the consequences that business owners don’t necessarily intend to cause, it’s just an emergent property of certain choices, right? This is precisely one of the reasons we need to recognize that this is a choice, because the consequences of the choice will matter.
  - fnimick 4y ago
    Who's making the choice though? There's no one person or even one group of people in charge, short of political regulation. If AI is less expensive than humans, then anyone who doesn't use AI will get outcompeted by those who do. That's the unfortunate reality of markets. Wealth always becomes more and more concentrated until a democratic initiative opposes it.
livelielife 4y ago
> without much worry about the consequences disagree, but the consequences I'm imagining are the consequences of loosing money due to not making those kinds of decisions. the consequences for the decision makers are very different, the incentives which surround them and the consequences they'll face are not what you seem to think they are.

by dahart 4y ago

Herval_freire 4y ago

No it's not healthy in my opinion. A drug addict doesn't exactly have a choice when he uses drugs. Aspects of human behavior in aggregate are so predictable it's basically deterministic. If AI one day matches or surpasses human intelligence it is obvious humanity will exploit that AI as it already is doing now. There is no actual "choice" here. Just an illusion of it.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
We've changed collective human behavior before though, outlawed slavery etc.
- falcolas 4y ago
  And yet, even in countries where slavery is outlawed, it's still done - sometimes out in the open, sometimes behind closed doors. e.g. the US, where people in jail are exempt from all our progressive slave labor laws.
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    Be that as it may, the collective behavior and shape of society has undeniably changed.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      Has it? Because when I look at humanity over the ages, I see a select few using technology and violence to exert power and influence over the great many to further their own desires. I don't see that changing in the future anytime soon, especially before AI gets to be the next technology in a long line of technology used to oppress and inflict violence on others.
      - fnimick 4y ago
        Aren't you excited to take the human element out of the loop of enforcing property ownership rights? In China, in Tianenmen, they had to bring in forces from the countryside because the city police wouldn't fire on their neighbors. AI won't have any restrictions or morals. An AI-powered law enforcement force would gun down every single person in a city if authorities called for it.
        redleggedfrog 4y ago
        This is the future - maybe not everywhere, and probably not soon, but it is an eventuality. Also, AI will be treated like encryption - it will become a munition, with the same type of restrictions as munitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...). Governments will keep the best AI for themselves, leaving the goof-nuts ChatGPT type stuff for private citizens. Then the question becomes did those gun downed humans deserve what they got? And did that massacre result in a greater good? Those are the not-so-pleasant questions the humans will have to ask themselves (probably using AI to help, ironically).
        fnimick 4y ago
        The real question in my mind is, does democracy survive once the top 1% has a complete and unquestioned monopoly on violence and power? I don't think so.
        4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Herval_freire 4y ago
  This is a good point. The civil war like the drug war though are choices made after an inevitable plunge onto the predictable path. Both choices had a high cost and were incredibly hard to make. It was also predictably a delayed response with varying levels of limited effectiveness.
dahart 4y ago
Initially I didn’t like the drug addict analogy, but maybe it’s a good one, maybe you’re right. A drug addict did have a choice, and exercised it, and addiction was the consequence. With AI we’re at the first stage where we’re not yet addicted, but once we become addicted, it will be very very hard to wean ourselves off of it if/when we find out it’s doing more damage than good. We do have a choice right now, but you might be right that we’ll lose it soon.
- schwartzworld 4y ago
  > A drug addict did have a choice, and exercised it, and addiction was the consequence This sort of disregards the large percentage of people who get hooked on drugs while recovering from injuries or medical issues. After marijuana, pain killers are the second most abused illegal substance.
  - dahart 4y ago
    That’s fair, you’re totally right. But, this is exposing why the drug addict analogy isn’t a great analogy relative to use of AI. I went along with it to find common ground, but I don’t believe the existence of drug addicts are evidence that we lack any choice when it comes to building, deploying, or using AI, like @Herval_freire implied. Do you? I think we do have the freedom to exercise caution, or regulate the use of certain dangerous machines, if we want.
    - Herval_freire 4y ago
      We lack choice in aggregate. As an individual you have the choice of doing a drug. If I talk about a population of people and I introduce highly addictive drugs to a population of people, then it's almost a guarantee that part of that population will get addicted. In this sense it is not a choice. For AI, if I introduce AI to a population of people then for sure part of the population will exploit and use AI. Logically speaking in order to compete, others will have to start using it as well.
      - 4y ago
mdkfof9rl 4y ago
Good thing LLMs don't have any intelligence at all, since they lack agency. We're no closer to AI that can be meaningfully exploited than we were when Asimov dreamt up the positronic brain
- dsign 4y ago
  I'm not sure if you are talking seriously or ironically, so I will assume the former. Agency is a wonderful thing to have. But it's not as difficult to realize as getting something to be good at general intellectual tasks. Just built into the system a goal of utmost priority which is "to survive", and everything follows. There is a (slight) chance that it is not as easy as that, but I wouldn't bank anything on that chance.

ajmurmann 4y ago

Comparing to outsourcing or, even less fitting, immigration is a terrible analogy. Those jobs and their income go to other humans. Other humans who will consume goods and services, this is especially true for immigration. I'd also argue that offshoring is morally positive because it moves the work and associated income to where people need it more, that's why the labor is cheaper there Both automation and global movement of goods and workers increase productivity which is highly desired. However, automation allows for the owner of the goods of production to retain much more of the value created. This leads to higher wealth concentration. I'm fine with some people being super rich, but I'm worried about there floor. IMO, we need something like UBI to raise the floor. Leaving AI assignment concerns aside, I'd be incredibly excited if the productivity gains from AI were to somehow be used to raise the floor for everyone on the planet. Instead I'm worried that we'll see more unemployment or more low-payed gig/service work on which, in the US, people might struggle to afford basic things like health care, housing and education for their children. Edit: This also carries a high risk of getting some form of violent revolution, or more push towards a too extreme solution like communism. After all communism was born as a response to the automation of the industrial revolution.

dahart 4y ago
Okay, it’s not a perfect analogy, but from the perspective of a business owner, the choice is to put money into something expensive like local human labor, or something cheaper whether it’s remote labor or automation of some kind. Lots of tools have been accused of stealing jobs over the years, from factory machines to vehicles to computers. In that sense, I’m only borrowing an analogy with a long rich tradition. The wealth concentration difference between labor and machines is one of the systemic outcomes, it’s one of the consequences that business owners don’t necessarily intend to cause, it’s just an emergent property of certain choices, right? This is precisely one of the reasons we need to recognize that this is a choice, because the consequences of the choice will matter.
- fnimick 4y ago
  Who's making the choice though? There's no one person or even one group of people in charge, short of political regulation. If AI is less expensive than humans, then anyone who doesn't use AI will get outcompeted by those who do. That's the unfortunate reality of markets. Wealth always becomes more and more concentrated until a democratic initiative opposes it.

livelielife 4y ago

> without much worry about the consequences disagree, but the consequences I'm imagining are the consequences of loosing money due to not making those kinds of decisions. the consequences for the decision makers are very different, the incentives which surround them and the consequences they'll face are not what you seem to think they are.