7 ms·

This is the best summary of AI risks so far. > Big tech monopolizing the models, data, and hardware. This ought to create a neofeudalist society. This is real

This is the best summary of AI risks so far. > Big tech monopolizing the models, data, and hardware. This ought to create a neofeudalist society. This is really dangerous. > Copyright concerns. Will I create something if I know it'll be part of chatgpt and effectively replace me? This will affect creativity and critical thinking for sure. > Job security. Well, this one could really be problematic for everyone. We're talking about social unrest and revolts on a global scale. Let's take the UBI premise for example: Problem #1: - The market will correct itself, meaning that if everyone has X amount of cash to buy products, services, etc... businesses will just increment their offerings to take advantage of that rendering the UBI useless. Problem #2: - If governments regulate the market to avoid businesses from incrementing prices, this will decimate small businesses and consolidate big corp, creating monopolies, etc... circling back to a neo feudalist society. Problem #3: - Will this solution apply to developing countries? It'll be easier just to ban AI and stop foreign companies from entering the market since the current government won't have the resources to apply UBI to its population. New era of protectionism will start and that'd makes sense if you want to protect your countrymen. > AIs becoming sentient and causing harm for their own ends. We're not close to that but should be discussed since I saw on twitter someone stating that we need "human rights" laws for "sentient" AIs. > Corporations intentionally using AI to cause harm for their own ends. Hand in hand with the first issue. > Feedback loops will flood the internet with content of unknown provenance, which get included in the next model, etc. > AI hallucinations resulting in widespread persistent errors that cause an epistemological crisis. > The training set is inherently biased; human knowledge and perspectives not represented in this set could be systematically wiped from public discourse. These three go together too. No trust whatsoever since you don't know if what you're reading is truth, etc... This would be the ideal goal for any government or politician, to commit unspeakable acts without any accountability since no one will trust anything on the internet. This decade will define everything going forward for future generations. These topics are no joke.

chrisco255 4y ago
>> Job security. > Well, this one could really be problematic for everyone. We're talking about social unrest and revolts on a global scale. Not necessarily. Firstly it's not even clear that AI will eliminate jobs without creating new ones. It's not clear that any development in AI will be any different than the transition to mechanization in the 19th and early 20th century. Secondly, it's not clear that even if AI were to successfully automate away labor that we would have a problem. For one, we have a demographic cliff rapidly approaching whereby a lot of countries population is falling, and even where it's not, the population is rapidly aging. There's already protests in France about raising retirement age. What if AI lets us have our cake and retire earlier too? At any rate, if AI is busy automating away labor, then the world is getting more efficient. And that means there are more resources to support people. All those debates are worth having, but you gotta cross that bridge when you get there, if you get there.
- abakker 4y ago
  I'll just add that I have so much more "non economically viable" work than I'll ever be able to do. I'd love machines that could write code for me to do tasks that I'll never be able to afford to invest in otherwise. put another way, we have a labor shortage at today's level of output already. BUT, I don't know anyone who doesn't want more output. I mean, we're not going to run out of stuff to do!? what about space? curing diseases, etc. what about having time to make more art? if an AI can do work, or make work easier, what makes us certain that we'll just settle for getting the same amount done vs doing more?
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    >if an AI can do work, or make work easier, what makes us certain that we'll just settle for getting the same amount done vs doing more? In this hyper-efficient future, is being paid for this stuff going to be viable? Why would anyone allocate money to your inefficient endeavors? There's this strange blindspot in people who think that more economic efficiency means you'll have time to do intrinsically inefficient labor. Who is going to feed and house you when your labor is irrelevant to the workings of the economy? UBI is a nice dream, but how do we get there from the current ruthless efficiently allocating system?
    - shagie 4y ago
      One of the proposals out there (often posed as part of funding UBI - but not always) is to tax robots. Should we tax robots? - https://news.mit.edu/2022/robot-tax-income-inequality-1221 https://news.mit.edu/2022/robot-tax-income-inequality-1221 > What if the U.S. placed a tax on robots? The concept has been publicly discussed by policy analysts, scholars, and Bill Gates (who favors the notion). Because robots can replace jobs, the idea goes, a stiff tax on them would give firms incentive to help retain workers, while also compensating for a dropoff in payroll taxes when robots are used. Thus far, South Korea has reduced incentives for firms to deploy robots; European Union policymakers, on the other hand, considered a robot tax but did not enact it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_tax There is a lot of material out there both for and against taxing robots.
slg 4y ago
>Problem #1: - The market will correct itself, meaning that if everyone has X amount of cash to buy products, services, etc... businesses will just increment their offerings to take advantage of that rendering the UBI useless. Why do people always say this in response to UBI as if it is a universal fact? UBI doesn't create new money by itself. It redistributes money. Its impact on inflation will therefore be in the shifting of demand curves. However that won't be uniform. Demand for certain products is rather static and therefore those prices won't be impacted much. For example, if you give me the money to double my food budget, I will go to nicer restaurants and buy higher quality items from the supermarket. I'm not simply going to buy twice the amount of everything I used to buy. Demand for basic staples like milk and eggs won't go up and therefore their price won't go up much. The biggest increases will be in luxury goods and services. The inflation caused by UBI would be progressive which is completely in line with the goals of UBI in providing a base level of money for people to live on. And this isn't even getting into the supply side response to these demand changes which will act as another counter to inflation. If there suddenly is increased demand, suppliers will bring more products to market. They aren't just going to jack up their prices unless there is a complete lack of competition (which is its own issue that would need to be addressed regardless of UBI).
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  If you need minimum wage to survive, you’ll work for minimum wage. If you don’t need minimum wage to survive, you’ll demand more money to work, or work to improve yourself, or just not work. The point remains that it’s harder to find cheap employees. So the cost of labor goes up. So prices rise. Specifically they rise until the poor folks must work at a low wage to survive again. Also, prices absolutely rise when there is a surge in demand. That’s literally economics 101.
  - slg 4y ago
    >Specifically they rise until the poor folks must work at a low wage to survive again. What are you basing this conclusion on? If what you say is true, minimum wage increases would be worthless as they would just be swallowed by inflation. However, studies on the topic show this isn't true. Minimum wage increases have a negligible impact on inflation. This should be obvious because minimum wage positions do not make up the entirety of the labor market and the labor costs do not make up the entirety of business costs. So why would all prices increase in pace with the minimum wage? >The point remains that it’s harder to find cheap employees. So the cost of labor goes up. So prices rise. Specifically they rise until the poor folks must work at a low wage to survive again. I didn't say there would be no inflation. I said inflation would be progressive in that it wouldn't have much of an impact on stables in which demand is inelastic and working class people spend a relatively higher percentage of their income.

chrisco255 4y ago

>> Job security. > Well, this one could really be problematic for everyone. We're talking about social unrest and revolts on a global scale. Not necessarily. Firstly it's not even clear that AI will eliminate jobs without creating new ones. It's not clear that any development in AI will be any different than the transition to mechanization in the 19th and early 20th century. Secondly, it's not clear that even if AI were to successfully automate away labor that we would have a problem. For one, we have a demographic cliff rapidly approaching whereby a lot of countries population is falling, and even where it's not, the population is rapidly aging. There's already protests in France about raising retirement age. What if AI lets us have our cake and retire earlier too? At any rate, if AI is busy automating away labor, then the world is getting more efficient. And that means there are more resources to support people. All those debates are worth having, but you gotta cross that bridge when you get there, if you get there.

abakker 4y ago
I'll just add that I have so much more "non economically viable" work than I'll ever be able to do. I'd love machines that could write code for me to do tasks that I'll never be able to afford to invest in otherwise. put another way, we have a labor shortage at today's level of output already. BUT, I don't know anyone who doesn't want more output. I mean, we're not going to run out of stuff to do!? what about space? curing diseases, etc. what about having time to make more art? if an AI can do work, or make work easier, what makes us certain that we'll just settle for getting the same amount done vs doing more?
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >if an AI can do work, or make work easier, what makes us certain that we'll just settle for getting the same amount done vs doing more? In this hyper-efficient future, is being paid for this stuff going to be viable? Why would anyone allocate money to your inefficient endeavors? There's this strange blindspot in people who think that more economic efficiency means you'll have time to do intrinsically inefficient labor. Who is going to feed and house you when your labor is irrelevant to the workings of the economy? UBI is a nice dream, but how do we get there from the current ruthless efficiently allocating system?
  - shagie 4y ago
    One of the proposals out there (often posed as part of funding UBI - but not always) is to tax robots. Should we tax robots? - https://news.mit.edu/2022/robot-tax-income-inequality-1221 https://news.mit.edu/2022/robot-tax-income-inequality-1221 > What if the U.S. placed a tax on robots? The concept has been publicly discussed by policy analysts, scholars, and Bill Gates (who favors the notion). Because robots can replace jobs, the idea goes, a stiff tax on them would give firms incentive to help retain workers, while also compensating for a dropoff in payroll taxes when robots are used. Thus far, South Korea has reduced incentives for firms to deploy robots; European Union policymakers, on the other hand, considered a robot tax but did not enact it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_tax There is a lot of material out there both for and against taxing robots.

slg 4y ago

>Problem #1: - The market will correct itself, meaning that if everyone has X amount of cash to buy products, services, etc... businesses will just increment their offerings to take advantage of that rendering the UBI useless. Why do people always say this in response to UBI as if it is a universal fact? UBI doesn't create new money by itself. It redistributes money. Its impact on inflation will therefore be in the shifting of demand curves. However that won't be uniform. Demand for certain products is rather static and therefore those prices won't be impacted much. For example, if you give me the money to double my food budget, I will go to nicer restaurants and buy higher quality items from the supermarket. I'm not simply going to buy twice the amount of everything I used to buy. Demand for basic staples like milk and eggs won't go up and therefore their price won't go up much. The biggest increases will be in luxury goods and services. The inflation caused by UBI would be progressive which is completely in line with the goals of UBI in providing a base level of money for people to live on. And this isn't even getting into the supply side response to these demand changes which will act as another counter to inflation. If there suddenly is increased demand, suppliers will bring more products to market. They aren't just going to jack up their prices unless there is a complete lack of competition (which is its own issue that would need to be addressed regardless of UBI).

fauxpause_ 4y ago
If you need minimum wage to survive, you’ll work for minimum wage. If you don’t need minimum wage to survive, you’ll demand more money to work, or work to improve yourself, or just not work. The point remains that it’s harder to find cheap employees. So the cost of labor goes up. So prices rise. Specifically they rise until the poor folks must work at a low wage to survive again. Also, prices absolutely rise when there is a surge in demand. That’s literally economics 101.
- slg 4y ago
  >Specifically they rise until the poor folks must work at a low wage to survive again. What are you basing this conclusion on? If what you say is true, minimum wage increases would be worthless as they would just be swallowed by inflation. However, studies on the topic show this isn't true. Minimum wage increases have a negligible impact on inflation. This should be obvious because minimum wage positions do not make up the entirety of the labor market and the labor costs do not make up the entirety of business costs. So why would all prices increase in pace with the minimum wage? >The point remains that it’s harder to find cheap employees. So the cost of labor goes up. So prices rise. Specifically they rise until the poor folks must work at a low wage to survive again. I didn't say there would be no inflation. I said inflation would be progressive in that it wouldn't have much of an impact on stables in which demand is inelastic and working class people spend a relatively higher percentage of their income.