4 ms·

I love this so much. The reality of _all_ technology is that it allows individuals to do more themselves. It condenses the knowledge domain to accomplish a task

I love this so much. The reality of _all_ technology is that it allows individuals to do more themselves. It condenses the knowledge domain to accomplish a task. In my mind, there are no downsides in allowing individuals more leverage. The real downsides are with the orthogonal problem of what productivity means in civil society. High productivity through technology is perfectly human - we're tool-builders and tool-makers. But, productivity does not absolve us of our responsibility to each other. People who suggest we should not use tools often justify their point of view with assertions of cost born by others. I am suspicious of this argument because the opportunity cost of _not_ letting people use the best tools available could be much greater. For example, had we not developed tools to create mRNA vaccines, many lives would have been lost to Covid that were saved. We don't know yet what AI will enable, but I'd rather we find out what people can achieve than focus on muddying the waters between productivity and society.

lewhoo 3y ago
Sure, if you look at artificial intelligence as a tool (perhaps there is still no reason not to), but the end goal here is not to assist but to replace, isn't it ?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- abakker 3y ago
  I guess I tend to see it as an augmentation simply because I don't see much evidence of it originating expertise. A side comment here is that I am equally skeptical that leveraging copyright work as training data is fair use. if the objective is to retrieve original copyright work, then I think its fair use, but if the goal is to draw me campaign poster in the style of Shepard Fairey, I'm not that sympathetic. If we use AI to replace the creation of copyright free derivative works, it isn't clear what the objection should be?
  - lewhoo 3y ago
    > If we use AI to replace the creation of copyright free derivative works, it isn't clear what the objection should be? None whatsoever, and I agree with everything you stated but this is right here and right now. If the technological boundary of AI had already reached its speed of light then there wouldn't be anyone raising concerns.
    - abakker 3y ago
      I’m far from convinced that the existence of even far future ai would be a problem. But, we certainly aren’t close to that now. We are instead building good generators for DND campaigns and searching through sales decks. I think it is highly possible that even getting close would yield really great outcomes for humans. Better medicine, better travel, better understanding of complexity. We should get closer to the end before we theorize about the finish line. Remember the classic line about not needing more than 640k of ram.

lewhoo 3y ago

Sure, if you look at artificial intelligence as a tool (perhaps there is still no reason not to), but the end goal here is not to assist but to replace, isn't it ?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
abakker 3y ago
I guess I tend to see it as an augmentation simply because I don't see much evidence of it originating expertise. A side comment here is that I am equally skeptical that leveraging copyright work as training data is fair use. if the objective is to retrieve original copyright work, then I think its fair use, but if the goal is to draw me campaign poster in the style of Shepard Fairey, I'm not that sympathetic. If we use AI to replace the creation of copyright free derivative works, it isn't clear what the objection should be?
- lewhoo 3y ago
  > If we use AI to replace the creation of copyright free derivative works, it isn't clear what the objection should be? None whatsoever, and I agree with everything you stated but this is right here and right now. If the technological boundary of AI had already reached its speed of light then there wouldn't be anyone raising concerns.
  - abakker 3y ago
    I’m far from convinced that the existence of even far future ai would be a problem. But, we certainly aren’t close to that now. We are instead building good generators for DND campaigns and searching through sales decks. I think it is highly possible that even getting close would yield really great outcomes for humans. Better medicine, better travel, better understanding of complexity. We should get closer to the end before we theorize about the finish line. Remember the classic line about not needing more than 640k of ram.