3 ms·
The most notable thing about AI right now is that it's the new widget. The economy wanted it, the zeitgeist wanted it, and for that purpose no more development
by matjus 3y ago
The most notable thing about AI right now is that it's the new widget. The economy wanted it, the zeitgeist wanted it, and for that purpose no more development is necessary. It's already reshaped McKinsey's advice, Microsoft's operating system and the public's trust in the exceptionalism of art creation.
take Auto-Tune: before it blew up, one uncritically accepted that a great sounding vocal performance was simply that. The mere existence of the tool broke a covenant with the public -- artists could assume good faith on behalf of listeners once, but no more.
Similarly, AI's chief effects are likely to be cultural first, and material second. They've already broken the "spell" of the creator. Seemingly overnight, a solution to modern malaise (choice fatigue, lack of education, suspicion of authority) has colonized the moment.
In this sense, one-percenters "seizing power forever" really have found the best possible time to do so -- I can't recall a time where the general populace was this vulnerable, ill-informed, traumatized and submissive.
That the underlying tech barely works (maybe that will change, but I predict it won't) doesn't really matter.
I don't generally support overly regulatory regimes, but in this case I think existing thinking around monopoly (particularly as it affects the psyche of the aspiring American) is sufficient to indicate something needs to happen
- bafe 3y agoI think a (likely beneficial) long-term side effect will be to teach most people to be more skeptical of any artifacts, be it images, audio, video of text. Unfortunately I assume there will be a learning phase where we will pay dearly for this through massive manipulation of public opinion
- logicchains 3y ago>I can't recall a time where the general populace was this vulnerable, ill-informed, traumatized and submissive. I don't know why you think this is the case; the general populace seems less submissive now than ever before. Consider how much opposition there is to Israel's bombing of Gaza among the western populace, even though almost all the elites support it. Or how the uptake rate for the latest covid vaccine boosters is under 10%, even though almost all the experts and elites support it.
- bafe 3y agoI take the fact that elites: - Support the booster - Get boosted - Try to avoid catching COVID As indications that getting boosted and avoiding sick people, perhaps wearing a mask on the train isn't a bad idea
- 00strw 3y agoA lot less than there was to the invasion of Iraq. People forget that the largest antiwar marches happened and were not covered by the media of the time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_Wa... It was surreal watching the news spend 5 minutes on a protest that went on all day in front of their offices. By comparison is there a million man march against Israel today?
- logicchains 3y ago>A lot less than there was to the invasion of Iraq In that case the US was an active participant. There aren't American "boots on the ground" in Israel/Palestine, the US is just providing support.
- jjgreen 3y ago100,000 in London last week [1], and a national demonstration planned for 11 Nov. Wouldn't be surprised if that's 300,000 [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/28/100000-join-london-march-against-strikes-on-gaza https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/28/100000-join-lo...
- strken 3y agoI don't think you can draw inferences from comparing an anti-Iraq-war march with an anti-Israel-bombing-Gaza march. Protesting to convince your own government to stop an invasion is a much more direct and tangible thing than marching to stop it supporting another government, such an invasion inflicts a direct cost in lives and materiel paid by your own country, and citizens feel a stronger moral involvement.
- matjus 3y agoThat's a good counterpoint. I think there's a new large category of uncritically-accepted norms, perhaps much larger than expressing political opinions. I'm thinking about smartphone adoption, mass surveillance, the big yawn at NSA datacenters, the flattening and consolidation of culture (music, tv, hollywood, etc), the normalization of extreme, zero-sum thinking with regard to race, gender and inequity regardless of political affiliation -- for me, this kind of thing is more interesting than stated "beliefs", and certainly more material. It seems unusual that there are so many frameworks, like describing computers as having "memory" (see: O'Gieblyn) or describing people as having "race", that have quietly gone from the theoretical plane, where they were useful, to being unchallenged fact. Again, this appears to be non-partisan -- and actually helps to explain some of the weirder behaviors of our markets and global politics. it definitely means something that all that Western opposition appears, at the moment, to have zero effect on Israeli military decision-making. And who would expect it to?
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago> It's already reshaped McKinsey's advice Out of curiosity how has that changed McKinsey's advice?