3 ms·

I was sincerely admiring vgr until he went off the deep end into crypto and now AI. The basic meta mistake in many similar arguments that I since heard from ot

I was sincerely admiring vgr until he went off the deep end into crypto and now AI. The basic meta mistake in many similar arguments that I since heard from others in the space is exemplified in this: > That’s… not how technology works. It's... not about technology, tech is not the end goal, human is. Tech serves human, and if it hurts human guess who should take precedence.

CamperBob2 4y ago
If it hurts some humans while helping others immensely, the question becomes murkier. Some questions are easy to dispense with, though: should we hold back the progress of ML because of the job-security concerns of some Hollywood writers? Answer: "No."
- throwaway290 4y ago
  It helps some humans (those using AI and selling AI services) and hurts some (everyone else). For added irony many from the second group is who mostly produced content on which AI is trained.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    It helps some humans (those using AI and selling AI services) and hurts some (everyone else). Gonna throw up a nice big [Citation Needed] flag on that one. A rising tide lifts all boats in the end. All of them. No exceptions.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Citation needed on whether it is that kind of rising tide. I think ML use should be regulated until economy is adapted with UBI or something. Benefit eventually does not justify unnecessary suffering now. Maybe in countries with stronger employment protections fewer people will be affected, but the topic is about US workers
      - CamperBob2 4y ago
        I think ML use should be regulated until economy is adapted with UBI or something You're putting the cart before the horse. ML is what will enable UBI. In the best of all possible worlds, we will look back on our present economy a hundred years from now and shudder, just as we currently do when the conversation turns to company towns and antebellum plantations. That won't happen unless something changes, and... well, here we are, watching it change. If zero-sum gamers in government don't "regulate" ML to death first, that is.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

CamperBob2 4y ago

If it hurts some humans while helping others immensely, the question becomes murkier. Some questions are easy to dispense with, though: should we hold back the progress of ML because of the job-security concerns of some Hollywood writers? Answer: "No."

throwaway290 4y ago
It helps some humans (those using AI and selling AI services) and hurts some (everyone else). For added irony many from the second group is who mostly produced content on which AI is trained.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  It helps some humans (those using AI and selling AI services) and hurts some (everyone else). Gonna throw up a nice big [Citation Needed] flag on that one. A rising tide lifts all boats in the end. All of them. No exceptions.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Citation needed on whether it is that kind of rising tide. I think ML use should be regulated until economy is adapted with UBI or something. Benefit eventually does not justify unnecessary suffering now. Maybe in countries with stronger employment protections fewer people will be affected, but the topic is about US workers
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      I think ML use should be regulated until economy is adapted with UBI or something You're putting the cart before the horse. ML is what will enable UBI. In the best of all possible worlds, we will look back on our present economy a hundred years from now and shudder, just as we currently do when the conversation turns to company towns and antebellum plantations. That won't happen unless something changes, and... well, here we are, watching it change. If zero-sum gamers in government don't "regulate" ML to death first, that is.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]