5 ms·

For me the more pressing concern is more societal unrest, economic and monopolistic - e.g workers being displaced without enough new jobs being created. Or eve

For me the more pressing concern is more societal unrest, economic and monopolistic - e.g workers being displaced without enough new jobs being created. Or every communication channel being spammed with no ability to discern trustworthy/authentic content. Or too few large companies hoarding the GPUs and owning the biggest most effective models which allows them not only to consolidate power in the AI industry but own/decide winners in every other industry. You can kinda see this now with Nvidia basically trading GPUs for equity. The 'regulate it like nukes' thing because teenagers might ask it to end the world thing seems pretty far down the line.

ChatGTP 3y ago
I hope the uber captialists decide they can use AI to build a space utopa for their families in another solar system and go there :) I honestly don't give a shit about jobs, or having a job, I have one because the system says I need one, if I don't need a job, I'd be so so so much better off. I'm certain we have enough technology and nohow to feed, house and provide electricity for everyone on earth without them having a 9-5.
- trident5000 3y ago
  This view is hilarious. That you think you can sit around and produce nothing while everyone else around you produces everything you need. Or that everyone can stop what they're doing and still provide you with that. You're just lazy with dreams of contributing nothing and thats not admirable. Until the day where robots are literally walking around wiping our ass, people need to do things.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    Check his username.
  - gmerc 3y ago
    The simple fix is to scale the maximum work week based on available work, partially socializing the efficient gain from AI to society which provided much of the training data. How much can be up for debate, but giving it all to corporates is going to be a replay of the run up to WW2
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    You completely misconstrued what I said actually. I like working, I like making things, I just don't care about having a "job" which I tie my identity too. I know that must jobs are bullshit jobs and the fact many need to show up to them just to provide for their family is stupid. Maybe a 3 hour day would be more realistic. Also, I have a Japanese Toto I imported from Japan, it's literally a robotic toilet that wipes my ass for me. Try again angry man.
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    > That you think you can sit around and produce nothing while everyone else around you produces everything you need. Yet that's exactly what the "leisure class" do. Inherit enough money and that's your life. Why is that not equally hilarious? Why do only some of us get to have that and it's OK?
    - trident5000 3y ago
      The vast majority of people who have money didnt inherit it. The vast majority worked for it. You dont have it because you didnt earn it. Instead you're on the internet demanding like a child that you dont need to work for anything. Thats the difference between people with money and yourself.
      - marcus_holmes 3y ago
        I'm not asking for money. I'm asking why it's OK to inherit money from your parents and do nothing useful your whole life. Why do we give those people a free pass?
        trident5000 3y ago
        People who receive money dont necessarily expect and demand to sit on their ass. It just happens to them and they got lucky. And theres not a "pass" you or anyone else is entitled to give. Its not your property or family matter.
      - brokenmachine 3y ago
        Nobody ever earned a billion dollars.
        trident5000 3y ago
        This is what people who have never built anything like to say. Bezos as an example built a great service. An exchange of value between willing customers and what he created happens repeatedly. Therefore he earned the billions. Thats how it works. The more value you create for the most people makes you more money. And I cant think of a more fair system.
  - thelastparadise 3y ago
    > the day where robots are literally walking around wiping our ass You jest, but there's quite a lot of elderly, frail, incontinent boomers who are or soon will be in need of this service. The Millennials zoomers and alphas seem to have little to no interest in doing the asswiping themselves.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      It's called a washlet or a bidet, check it out.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Lio 3y ago
  > I hope the uber captialists decide they can use AI to build a space utopa for their families in another solar system and go there :) Sounds a bit like Douglas Adams' Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B, except for tech bros instead of telephone sanitisers or advertising executives.
mindwok 3y ago
In terms of communication channels being spammed: I am actually hopeful for this because it will just create enormous incentives for us to rethink our communication channels to be much more selective. For example, moving email to be a pull-based system from people I'm actually interested in hearing from rather than an open door with less-than-perfect spam filters. Or making telephone numbers something that have to be mutually exchanged to allow access.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  > Or making telephone numbers something that have to be mutually exchanged to allow access. How would this work? Do you have to meet in person?
  - mindwok 3y ago
    I was thinking that, or you have to accept a request from someone before they can call you for example.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      In person seems impractical for businesses or for foreign correspondence, which is kind of the thing phone excels at. And having to accept a sent request just makes that the vector for abuse doesn't it?
      - mindwok 3y ago
        There's potential for abusing a sent request, but because most people won't accept them it basically removes the incentive to bother abusing it. It's at least much less abusive then calling people.
trident5000 3y ago
Think of it a bit differently. Think of production being so efficient and labor free that producing goods and services is extremely cheap and in turn produces abundance. Theres a reason why Jamie Dimon is saying people will be working 3 days per week in a generation because of AI. And its why in capitalistic and technology forward societies the poor are generally better off than every generation prior.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  Didn't people say that about personal computers as well? Compared to a few generations ago we have everything in cheap abundance but we're still working 5+ days a week.
  - trident5000 3y ago
    Maybe the work week hasnt shrunk yet, but the amount of goods and services available at an affordable price to the average joe is way up.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      The work week hasn't shrunk at all, and many goods and services are cheaper but housing isn't and many people live paycheck to paycheck. I have my reservations that THIS revolution will be the one that solves our problems. A jump in technology is simply a way for those with the means to get more out of those without. AI isn't an equalizer, compute seems like it'll be the new valuable resource and you can buy that with cash.
      - SoftTalker 3y ago
        Many people have always lived paycheck to paycheck. Maybe part of it is that people are bidding up rents because everything else is relatively cheap?
      - aa1234556 3y ago
        [dead]
Aerroon 3y ago
>The 'regulate it like nukes' thing because teenagers might ask it to end the world thing seems pretty far down the line. It's straight up absurd. AI is going to have no appreciable effect on this, because it would simply be disseminating existing knowledge. You can already look up how to build a nuclear bomb. It's not some kind of big secret that nobody's allowed to know. The same goes for all the other world-ending scenarios. AI can't act on its own in the physical world. Even when it eventually does, it will be bound by the same limitations people are. I agree that the real dangers AI presents are much more mundane. People being able to do things so much more efficiently is going to cause instability in people's lives whose jobs it will affect. It won't replace everyone, but it will cause problems - people have to learn new skills, find new jobs etc.
- johnthewise 3y ago
  >AI can't act on its own in the physical world. If it can earn money or is given money, it can certainly get people to do things in the physical world.
- didibus 3y ago
  AI alone, but logically AI eventually combines with capabilities from robotics, or is able to reach into auto-pilots of cars and planes, drones, self-manned turrets, missile controls, etc. No?
- mo_42 3y ago
  AIs are already acting in the physical world: Any AI (e.g., ChatGPT) changes the configuration of the human brain of those who use it. Sure, it's a rather philosophical argument currently, but this will change. If I would be a malicious actor, I'd create a chat bot that sneaks in responses that are in favor of my agenda. In that I'll make my users the puppets of the AI.
  - omnimus 3y ago
    Its not like this hasnt been always happening. Its the reason billionares buy media companies, fake news, astroturfing, bans of books… does it even matter if its Andrew Tate or “AI” spewing nonsense?

ChatGTP 3y ago

I hope the uber captialists decide they can use AI to build a space utopa for their families in another solar system and go there :) I honestly don't give a shit about jobs, or having a job, I have one because the system says I need one, if I don't need a job, I'd be so so so much better off. I'm certain we have enough technology and nohow to feed, house and provide electricity for everyone on earth without them having a 9-5.

trident5000 3y ago
This view is hilarious. That you think you can sit around and produce nothing while everyone else around you produces everything you need. Or that everyone can stop what they're doing and still provide you with that. You're just lazy with dreams of contributing nothing and thats not admirable. Until the day where robots are literally walking around wiping our ass, people need to do things.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  Check his username.
- gmerc 3y ago
  The simple fix is to scale the maximum work week based on available work, partially socializing the efficient gain from AI to society which provided much of the training data. How much can be up for debate, but giving it all to corporates is going to be a replay of the run up to WW2
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  You completely misconstrued what I said actually. I like working, I like making things, I just don't care about having a "job" which I tie my identity too. I know that must jobs are bullshit jobs and the fact many need to show up to them just to provide for their family is stupid. Maybe a 3 hour day would be more realistic. Also, I have a Japanese Toto I imported from Japan, it's literally a robotic toilet that wipes my ass for me. Try again angry man.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  > That you think you can sit around and produce nothing while everyone else around you produces everything you need. Yet that's exactly what the "leisure class" do. Inherit enough money and that's your life. Why is that not equally hilarious? Why do only some of us get to have that and it's OK?
  - trident5000 3y ago
    The vast majority of people who have money didnt inherit it. The vast majority worked for it. You dont have it because you didnt earn it. Instead you're on the internet demanding like a child that you dont need to work for anything. Thats the difference between people with money and yourself.
    - marcus_holmes 3y ago
      I'm not asking for money. I'm asking why it's OK to inherit money from your parents and do nothing useful your whole life. Why do we give those people a free pass?
      - trident5000 3y ago
        People who receive money dont necessarily expect and demand to sit on their ass. It just happens to them and they got lucky. And theres not a "pass" you or anyone else is entitled to give. Its not your property or family matter.
    - brokenmachine 3y ago
      Nobody ever earned a billion dollars.
      - trident5000 3y ago
        This is what people who have never built anything like to say. Bezos as an example built a great service. An exchange of value between willing customers and what he created happens repeatedly. Therefore he earned the billions. Thats how it works. The more value you create for the most people makes you more money. And I cant think of a more fair system.
- thelastparadise 3y ago
  > the day where robots are literally walking around wiping our ass You jest, but there's quite a lot of elderly, frail, incontinent boomers who are or soon will be in need of this service. The Millennials zoomers and alphas seem to have little to no interest in doing the asswiping themselves.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    It's called a washlet or a bidet, check it out.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Lio 3y ago
> I hope the uber captialists decide they can use AI to build a space utopa for their families in another solar system and go there :) Sounds a bit like Douglas Adams' Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B, except for tech bros instead of telephone sanitisers or advertising executives.

mindwok 3y ago

In terms of communication channels being spammed: I am actually hopeful for this because it will just create enormous incentives for us to rethink our communication channels to be much more selective. For example, moving email to be a pull-based system from people I'm actually interested in hearing from rather than an open door with less-than-perfect spam filters. Or making telephone numbers something that have to be mutually exchanged to allow access.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
> Or making telephone numbers something that have to be mutually exchanged to allow access. How would this work? Do you have to meet in person?
- mindwok 3y ago
  I was thinking that, or you have to accept a request from someone before they can call you for example.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    In person seems impractical for businesses or for foreign correspondence, which is kind of the thing phone excels at. And having to accept a sent request just makes that the vector for abuse doesn't it?
    - mindwok 3y ago
      There's potential for abusing a sent request, but because most people won't accept them it basically removes the incentive to bother abusing it. It's at least much less abusive then calling people.

trident5000 3y ago

Think of it a bit differently. Think of production being so efficient and labor free that producing goods and services is extremely cheap and in turn produces abundance. Theres a reason why Jamie Dimon is saying people will be working 3 days per week in a generation because of AI. And its why in capitalistic and technology forward societies the poor are generally better off than every generation prior.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
Didn't people say that about personal computers as well? Compared to a few generations ago we have everything in cheap abundance but we're still working 5+ days a week.
- trident5000 3y ago
  Maybe the work week hasnt shrunk yet, but the amount of goods and services available at an affordable price to the average joe is way up.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    The work week hasn't shrunk at all, and many goods and services are cheaper but housing isn't and many people live paycheck to paycheck. I have my reservations that THIS revolution will be the one that solves our problems. A jump in technology is simply a way for those with the means to get more out of those without. AI isn't an equalizer, compute seems like it'll be the new valuable resource and you can buy that with cash.
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      Many people have always lived paycheck to paycheck. Maybe part of it is that people are bidding up rents because everything else is relatively cheap?
    - aa1234556 3y ago
      [dead]

Aerroon 3y ago

>The 'regulate it like nukes' thing because teenagers might ask it to end the world thing seems pretty far down the line. It's straight up absurd. AI is going to have no appreciable effect on this, because it would simply be disseminating existing knowledge. You can already look up how to build a nuclear bomb. It's not some kind of big secret that nobody's allowed to know. The same goes for all the other world-ending scenarios. AI can't act on its own in the physical world. Even when it eventually does, it will be bound by the same limitations people are. I agree that the real dangers AI presents are much more mundane. People being able to do things so much more efficiently is going to cause instability in people's lives whose jobs it will affect. It won't replace everyone, but it will cause problems - people have to learn new skills, find new jobs etc.

johnthewise 3y ago
>AI can't act on its own in the physical world. If it can earn money or is given money, it can certainly get people to do things in the physical world.
didibus 3y ago
AI alone, but logically AI eventually combines with capabilities from robotics, or is able to reach into auto-pilots of cars and planes, drones, self-manned turrets, missile controls, etc. No?
mo_42 3y ago
AIs are already acting in the physical world: Any AI (e.g., ChatGPT) changes the configuration of the human brain of those who use it. Sure, it's a rather philosophical argument currently, but this will change. If I would be a malicious actor, I'd create a chat bot that sneaks in responses that are in favor of my agenda. In that I'll make my users the puppets of the AI.
- omnimus 3y ago
  Its not like this hasnt been always happening. Its the reason billionares buy media companies, fake news, astroturfing, bans of books… does it even matter if its Andrew Tate or “AI” spewing nonsense?