4 ms·

I think the hard part is, yeah, I see there's like a million ways this could turn out poorly for society but what the heck am I going to do? I can't control wha

I think the hard part is, yeah, I see there's like a million ways this could turn out poorly for society but what the heck am I going to do? I can't control what OpenAI/Meta/Google does so why does me raging on the internet about it, instead of just learning to understand the tech and using it, gain me? It's like boycotting walmart. All you're going to do, if you personally boycott walmart, is deprive yourself of the convenience. It's not going to hurt walmart in the slightest. Even if a percentage of people did it, it's not like walmart is going to struggle at least not in a way that makes the boycott useful.

JohnFen 4y ago
> I see there's like a million ways this could turn out poorly for society but what the heck am I going to do? This is, for me, a key issue. It means that we're powerless about this -- if it will be a disaster (and I personally think that the odds are uncomfortably high that it will), it's one that's being forced on us all. The only realistic thing I can think to do is to engage in the same sort of disaster preparedness that we should all be doing anyway. Particularly when it comes to employment and income. Powerlessness (real or perceived) is a terrible place to be, and itself can be the source of real disaster.
vikingerik 4y ago
I think the idea is, yes, you could control what OpenAI/Meta/Google do, if you could organize at large enough scale. We still live in a democracy, and if the will of enough of the people was to ban or regulate AI, that would happen. Of course, internet-raging is easier than actually organizing enough political will to influence a legislature, so that's what people do instead. Same for the boycott-Walmart argument; if enough people did it, it would push Walmart to change their ways, but organizing that is hard, and so they do what they think is their part and get self-satisfaction from that and stop there.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

JohnFen 4y ago

> I see there's like a million ways this could turn out poorly for society but what the heck am I going to do? This is, for me, a key issue. It means that we're powerless about this -- if it will be a disaster (and I personally think that the odds are uncomfortably high that it will), it's one that's being forced on us all. The only realistic thing I can think to do is to engage in the same sort of disaster preparedness that we should all be doing anyway. Particularly when it comes to employment and income. Powerlessness (real or perceived) is a terrible place to be, and itself can be the source of real disaster.

vikingerik 4y ago

I think the idea is, yes, you could control what OpenAI/Meta/Google do, if you could organize at large enough scale. We still live in a democracy, and if the will of enough of the people was to ban or regulate AI, that would happen. Of course, internet-raging is easier than actually organizing enough political will to influence a legislature, so that's what people do instead. Same for the boycott-Walmart argument; if enough people did it, it would push Walmart to change their ways, but organizing that is hard, and so they do what they think is their part and get self-satisfaction from that and stop there.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]