9 ms·

If we play our cards right, AI could free people up for more valuable pursuits, and the pace of human information production would increase by orders of magnitu

If we play our cards right, AI could free people up for more valuable pursuits, and the pace of human information production would increase by orders of magnitude

gumballindie 4y ago
> free people As opposed to what? Being "captive" in jobs for paying bills?
- digdugdirk 4y ago
  I mean... Yes. What would you suggest as the alternative?
  - gumballindie 4y ago
    Erm not causing mass unemployment by stealing data? Also people go freely where there's pay. Seems like there aren't many opportunities and there will fewer.
    - replygirl 4y ago
      So hopefully we play our cards right, by extracting benefits from AI that overcompensate for the negative impacts like mass unemployment and democratization of intellectual property. If the spoils are distributed in such a way that people's standard of living is maintained or improved, people have more liesure time, which the social sciences have shown will not mean people will just stop working--they'll work less, but with higher productivity on things promising a greater benefit to family, community, and society. Forgive me if I'm misreading, but I'm having trouble with your line of reasoning. Your first reply to me scarequoting "captive" strongly implies an argument that the imperative to seek employment for survival is not a limiting factor on how people spend their time, and therefore that my suggestion that giving people more choice over how they apply their talents could be a good thing is irrelevant; but your child reply implies a concern that AI taking over some human labor will cause mass unemployment and explicitly states choice is declining. I'm advocating that, since the genie is out of the bottle, AI could be used to free people from toil, just as other labor innovations like machinery and the 40-hour work week have done. Why the dismissive snark? In the abstract, do we not want the same thing?
      - gumballindie 4y ago
        Unfortunately real life doesn't work the way you describe. People won't be "free" to enjoy more "leisure" time, by "democratizing" the results of their work. Instead, all of this stolen data, will be used to "free" them from jobs and to consolidate corporate control. Say bye to microbusinesses, to freelancers, to indie developers. You know, those people that have been truly free. Similarly, office workers will be "free" to lose the jobs that they chose to perform, and will have nowhere else to go but unemployment lines. All thanks to "democratizing" ip by stealing data.
        replygirl 4y ago
        I agree that not playing our cards right is the default scenario.
        gumballindie 4y ago
        As a technology ai can indeed free people in a productive manner. But it would appear that we started on the wrong footing. Power will be consolidated in the hands of a few at a scale we haven't seen yet. It all depends tho on whether we can regulate how data is collected, at least at the basic level of not infringing copyright.
        visarga 4y ago
        > All thanks to "democratizing" ip by stealing data. That horse is already dead. Large models can learn everything, there's nothing that can be done to stop them from learning. It's too easy for them to do it. We can't hold any meaningful IP when models can generate 100 variations only different enough to pass the test. IP is dead. But on its corpse there will grow a new world of applications. We all got new skills, depends on us if we use them or not.
        gumballindie 4y ago
        Sure. In before people used to say that currency is dead because crypto currency has replaced money already, and already people are using them, and already [insert marketing statement]. I see they now moved on to ai.
visarga 4y ago
> free people up for more valuable pursuits It won't roll like that. AI will empower people to be more productive but won't free people up because it makes mistakes, can't help itself, and cannot function autonomously. There is no LLM application that is safe for autonomous usage today. How can we go from 0 to 1? I don't see a path. Self driving cars still can't reach L5 to completely remove the need for driver. But maybe this is a blessing in disguise. It will make AI more like a new ability of humans than of the companies. Companies need people to unlock AI efficiencies. And AI tends to become open sourced so everyone has access to the same. AI is not a moat for companies and human ability to hand-held it is tied to individuals. That would make the transition easier. Solving that last 1% accuracy might encounter exponential friction and last for a while.
- replygirl 4y ago
  Yeah, it's not that I think we'll get all the way there, it's a utopia. My expectation is that within 30 years we reduce the work week by a day or two for most people, compensate for our education system's decline, and avoid energy and food crises, and nothing else fundamentally changes
  - jacooper 4y ago
    Assuming this happens without any violence, which I truly doubt. Huge socioeconomic changes like this always come as a result of violence and uproar.
    - eru 4y ago
      Why? Eg in the latter half of the 20th century the US integrated women into the workforce (almost doubling the population eligible for participation in the labourforce), without violence or uproar. There was also remarkably little uproar nor violence when the Czech Republic escaped the Iron Curtain and embraced capitalism.
      - jacooper 4y ago
        Integrating women into the workforce is not even close to abolishing private capital and the need to work. The violence would be between billionaires with infinite automation making infinite money, and common folk with no way to eat.
blibble 4y ago
> the pace of human information production would increase by orders of magnitude you mean boilerplate and spam right?

If we play our cards right, AI could free people up for more valuable pursuits, and the pace of human information production would increase by orders of magnitude

gumballindie 4y ago

> free people As opposed to what? Being "captive" in jobs for paying bills?

digdugdirk 4y ago
I mean... Yes. What would you suggest as the alternative?
- gumballindie 4y ago
  Erm not causing mass unemployment by stealing data? Also people go freely where there's pay. Seems like there aren't many opportunities and there will fewer.
  - replygirl 4y ago
    So hopefully we play our cards right, by extracting benefits from AI that overcompensate for the negative impacts like mass unemployment and democratization of intellectual property. If the spoils are distributed in such a way that people's standard of living is maintained or improved, people have more liesure time, which the social sciences have shown will not mean people will just stop working--they'll work less, but with higher productivity on things promising a greater benefit to family, community, and society. Forgive me if I'm misreading, but I'm having trouble with your line of reasoning. Your first reply to me scarequoting "captive" strongly implies an argument that the imperative to seek employment for survival is not a limiting factor on how people spend their time, and therefore that my suggestion that giving people more choice over how they apply their talents could be a good thing is irrelevant; but your child reply implies a concern that AI taking over some human labor will cause mass unemployment and explicitly states choice is declining. I'm advocating that, since the genie is out of the bottle, AI could be used to free people from toil, just as other labor innovations like machinery and the 40-hour work week have done. Why the dismissive snark? In the abstract, do we not want the same thing?
    - gumballindie 4y ago
      Unfortunately real life doesn't work the way you describe. People won't be "free" to enjoy more "leisure" time, by "democratizing" the results of their work. Instead, all of this stolen data, will be used to "free" them from jobs and to consolidate corporate control. Say bye to microbusinesses, to freelancers, to indie developers. You know, those people that have been truly free. Similarly, office workers will be "free" to lose the jobs that they chose to perform, and will have nowhere else to go but unemployment lines. All thanks to "democratizing" ip by stealing data.
      - replygirl 4y ago
        I agree that not playing our cards right is the default scenario.
        gumballindie 4y ago
        As a technology ai can indeed free people in a productive manner. But it would appear that we started on the wrong footing. Power will be consolidated in the hands of a few at a scale we haven't seen yet. It all depends tho on whether we can regulate how data is collected, at least at the basic level of not infringing copyright.
      - visarga 4y ago
        > All thanks to "democratizing" ip by stealing data. That horse is already dead. Large models can learn everything, there's nothing that can be done to stop them from learning. It's too easy for them to do it. We can't hold any meaningful IP when models can generate 100 variations only different enough to pass the test. IP is dead. But on its corpse there will grow a new world of applications. We all got new skills, depends on us if we use them or not.
        gumballindie 4y ago
        Sure. In before people used to say that currency is dead because crypto currency has replaced money already, and already people are using them, and already [insert marketing statement]. I see they now moved on to ai.

visarga 4y ago

> free people up for more valuable pursuits It won't roll like that. AI will empower people to be more productive but won't free people up because it makes mistakes, can't help itself, and cannot function autonomously. There is no LLM application that is safe for autonomous usage today. How can we go from 0 to 1? I don't see a path. Self driving cars still can't reach L5 to completely remove the need for driver. But maybe this is a blessing in disguise. It will make AI more like a new ability of humans than of the companies. Companies need people to unlock AI efficiencies. And AI tends to become open sourced so everyone has access to the same. AI is not a moat for companies and human ability to hand-held it is tied to individuals. That would make the transition easier. Solving that last 1% accuracy might encounter exponential friction and last for a while.

replygirl 4y ago
Yeah, it's not that I think we'll get all the way there, it's a utopia. My expectation is that within 30 years we reduce the work week by a day or two for most people, compensate for our education system's decline, and avoid energy and food crises, and nothing else fundamentally changes
- jacooper 4y ago
  Assuming this happens without any violence, which I truly doubt. Huge socioeconomic changes like this always come as a result of violence and uproar.
  - eru 4y ago
    Why? Eg in the latter half of the 20th century the US integrated women into the workforce (almost doubling the population eligible for participation in the labourforce), without violence or uproar. There was also remarkably little uproar nor violence when the Czech Republic escaped the Iron Curtain and embraced capitalism.
    - jacooper 4y ago
      Integrating women into the workforce is not even close to abolishing private capital and the need to work. The violence would be between billionaires with infinite automation making infinite money, and common folk with no way to eat.

blibble 4y ago

> the pace of human information production would increase by orders of magnitude you mean boilerplate and spam right?