4 ms·

What's your main concern with all of this?

JohnFen 4y ago
People are perceiving (rightly or wrongly, I'm not debating that in this comment) that this software is powerful enough that it can replace people even in jobs that were always considered safe. If that perception is accurate, it's really hard to see how this can lead to anywhere that isn't much worse for most people. If that perception is not accurate, people will still be upset by what looks like an existential threat to them, and if there's economic disruption for any unrelated reason, they will blame AI. Either way, I'm really struggling to see a good outcome from any of this. I'm not saying ChatGPT is bad, but I think the rollout of it has been done in a way that is incredibly insensitive, reckless and damaging.
- int_19h 4y ago
  > it's really hard to see how this can lead to anywhere that isn't much worse for most people. It's very easy to see that, actually. Consider the problem statement again: economy is becoming more productive overall because we now have robots that can do some things that previously required people. This means that we can generate more total wealth for the same effort as before. That this translates to people being worse off, somehow, is a problem with the distribution of that generated wealth, not the ability to produce it. Even a sensible implementation of UBI could fix the most immediate problem, and I think we're looking at much bigger shifts in our economic system within the next couple decades.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > That this translates to people being worse off, somehow, is a problem with the distribution of that generated wealth, not the ability to produce it. Exactly so. > Even a sensible implementation of UBI could fix the most immediate problem Which is simply not in the cards. The people who have the wealth are absolutely not going to give it away, because wealth equals power and they want power. So what is more likely to happen is that the very wealthy will become fewer in number, and much wealthier, and everyone else will become poorer (in absolute, not relative terms) due to the reduction in the amount of jobs available that pay a living wage. > I think we're looking at much bigger shifts in our economic system within the next couple decades. Perhaps so -- but you can't ignore the serious harm between now and then.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Many of the people who do have the wealth have been talking about UBI. Not out of the kindness of their heart, but because they understand that a world in which billions of people suddenly become "economically redundant" is also the world in which their mansions will burn, some quite possibly with their owners inside. Now, these guys mostly propose the "bare minimum" kind - effectively, just enough to prevent this scenario. But they can't argue for it without legitimizing the concept in general. The bigger political problem in US specifically is just how hostile the public opinion is to anything that "stinks" of socialism. There's also the perception that AI is automating away "useless" white collar jobs, and not "real man's work". The right-wing intelligentsia who tries to sell UBI to their electorate is having a hard time getting past that, but I don't think it's insurmountable with the right approach, and it's also much less of an issue in most other countries. In any case, I think attitudes will change very quickly once more people outside of tech and art get first-hands experience with job loss, if not for themselves than for someone they know. The harm between now and then is serious and real, yes. I just don't see any feasible way to prevent it through regulation, not to mention that it would face just as many political hurdles. We have already jumped; let's not waste time trying to flap our arms to see if that works, and try to arrange for a safe landing instead.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        > try to arrange for a safe landing instead. That would be nice. I sincerely hope that we can swing that. I just don't see a realistic path for it. And almost everything that I've been hearing the enthusiasts say just makes everything seem more hopeless. But I'm very much hoping that I'm wrong. At this point, hoping is the only thing I have the power to do.
        int_19h 4y ago
        One thing that I wish more people realized is that if this tech wave does push our societies into this degree of violence - and I believe that this is a distinct possibility - it won't be Altman's mansion that'll burn first. It'll be the houses of software engineers and other "high middle class" occupations in rich suburbs - simply because they are much closer, and don't have much security, so more accessible. Altman will have the time to get to his private jet off to New Zealand or wherever the current bunker is; the rest of us will suffer the immediate consequences. See also: 1917 Russian Revolution. So, regardless of one's ethics and political philosophy, we have a very strong collective interest as an economic class to prevent this scenario. Most of us don't have any more direct political power than your average voter, but we can throw more money at the politicians. In my experience, this doesn't help one bit with "wedge issues", but this all is so new that nobody has managed to weaponize it across political lines just yet.

People are perceiving (rightly or wrongly, I'm not debating that in this comment) that this software is powerful enough that it can replace people even in jobs that were always considered safe. If that perception is accurate, it's really hard to see how this can lead to anywhere that isn't much worse for most people. If that perception is not accurate, people will still be upset by what looks like an existential threat to them, and if there's economic disruption for any unrelated reason, they will blame AI. Either way, I'm really struggling to see a good outcome from any of this. I'm not saying ChatGPT is bad, but I think the rollout of it has been done in a way that is incredibly insensitive, reckless and damaging.

int_19h 4y ago
> it's really hard to see how this can lead to anywhere that isn't much worse for most people. It's very easy to see that, actually. Consider the problem statement again: economy is becoming more productive overall because we now have robots that can do some things that previously required people. This means that we can generate more total wealth for the same effort as before. That this translates to people being worse off, somehow, is a problem with the distribution of that generated wealth, not the ability to produce it. Even a sensible implementation of UBI could fix the most immediate problem, and I think we're looking at much bigger shifts in our economic system within the next couple decades.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > That this translates to people being worse off, somehow, is a problem with the distribution of that generated wealth, not the ability to produce it. Exactly so. > Even a sensible implementation of UBI could fix the most immediate problem Which is simply not in the cards. The people who have the wealth are absolutely not going to give it away, because wealth equals power and they want power. So what is more likely to happen is that the very wealthy will become fewer in number, and much wealthier, and everyone else will become poorer (in absolute, not relative terms) due to the reduction in the amount of jobs available that pay a living wage. > I think we're looking at much bigger shifts in our economic system within the next couple decades. Perhaps so -- but you can't ignore the serious harm between now and then.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Many of the people who do have the wealth have been talking about UBI. Not out of the kindness of their heart, but because they understand that a world in which billions of people suddenly become "economically redundant" is also the world in which their mansions will burn, some quite possibly with their owners inside. Now, these guys mostly propose the "bare minimum" kind - effectively, just enough to prevent this scenario. But they can't argue for it without legitimizing the concept in general. The bigger political problem in US specifically is just how hostile the public opinion is to anything that "stinks" of socialism. There's also the perception that AI is automating away "useless" white collar jobs, and not "real man's work". The right-wing intelligentsia who tries to sell UBI to their electorate is having a hard time getting past that, but I don't think it's insurmountable with the right approach, and it's also much less of an issue in most other countries. In any case, I think attitudes will change very quickly once more people outside of tech and art get first-hands experience with job loss, if not for themselves than for someone they know. The harm between now and then is serious and real, yes. I just don't see any feasible way to prevent it through regulation, not to mention that it would face just as many political hurdles. We have already jumped; let's not waste time trying to flap our arms to see if that works, and try to arrange for a safe landing instead.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > try to arrange for a safe landing instead. That would be nice. I sincerely hope that we can swing that. I just don't see a realistic path for it. And almost everything that I've been hearing the enthusiasts say just makes everything seem more hopeless. But I'm very much hoping that I'm wrong. At this point, hoping is the only thing I have the power to do.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        One thing that I wish more people realized is that if this tech wave does push our societies into this degree of violence - and I believe that this is a distinct possibility - it won't be Altman's mansion that'll burn first. It'll be the houses of software engineers and other "high middle class" occupations in rich suburbs - simply because they are much closer, and don't have much security, so more accessible. Altman will have the time to get to his private jet off to New Zealand or wherever the current bunker is; the rest of us will suffer the immediate consequences. See also: 1917 Russian Revolution. So, regardless of one's ethics and political philosophy, we have a very strong collective interest as an economic class to prevent this scenario. Most of us don't have any more direct political power than your average voter, but we can throw more money at the politicians. In my experience, this doesn't help one bit with "wedge issues", but this all is so new that nobody has managed to weaponize it across political lines just yet.