3 ms·

What should happen next in the AI world is that humanity itself should revolt against AI -- the problem with it being that: (A) It is an immensely powerful too

What should happen next in the AI world is that humanity itself should revolt against AI -- the problem with it being that: (A) It is an immensely powerful tool that cannot be controlled and will be used by tech companies to create a sort of neo-feudalism where all jobs, including creative ones, can be accomplished by AI. Anyone wishing to participate in this advanced technological economy will need to pay. (B) It will remove the need for other human beings. Think of how many times you met someone and developed a connection with them because they could do something you could not. Now, those connections will be a thing of the past. (C) It will be used by criminals to terrorize ordinary people with very advanced scams such as impersonation, identity theft, etc. We should revolt against AI and destroy it. There is no controlling it.

ben_w 3y ago
Calling AI "feudalism" feels to me a bit like how Karl Marx dismissed capitalism[0] as being basically the same as feudalism but with different faces when writing the Communist Manifesto. It might be a new and exciting kind of bad, but I doubt it will be anything that can reasonably be described as neo-feudalism. [0] and all the other things he didn't like
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Well, if a person wants to integrate with society and make any sort of decent living as society defines it, they already have to pay an enormous amount of money to keep various electronic devices like a computer. And unlike a tractor or a car, computers and phones are upgraded so frequently that we are locked into continually upgrading. Several software suites are becoming subscription-only, including Adobe which is required for a lot of creative work, especially in the publishing and illustrating world. The other day I went into a restaurant and they didn't even have a menu but required a QR code to read the menu! Now what if a community didn't want to pay the fee? How hard would it be to disconnect from being reliant on tech companies? N.B. It is important to take into account the sheer power of tech companies compared to traditional businesses you might rely on like the hardware store. The scope and range of their power is what makes it more like feudalism compared to how traditional societies were inter-reliant.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    These companies exist by agreement with societies and limiting their power can be done relatively easily if societies want to.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      Unfortunately, these companies exist by creating incremental inventions that at first are beneficial but only start to show their negative effects decades later. The initial improvements are somewhat addictive like a drug, so that limiting their power is akin to asking drug addicts to stop their habit.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Stopping the habit is not required when limiting their power.
- beepbooptheory 3y ago
  Marx does not say this at all in the Communist Manifesto. And further, if anything he was in awe of capitalism. He didn't write those 3000+ pages investigating and articulating capitalism because he simply "didn't like it." He saw it as a crucial and huge moment of history that we will one day evolve out of, not some bad thing that bad guys do. Say what you will but its quite funny to describe him as "dismissing" anything; he quite literally would not not shut up about it. Marx maybe dismissed Proudhon, but not Smith! Not Ricardo! Not even Malthus really. Drawing parallels is good, but you gotta make sure you know what you are talking about!
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Marx does not say this at all in the Communist Manifesto. And further, if anything he was in awe of capitalism As I read it, the Communist Manifesto puts each positive aspect of capitalism in the past tense, that it was an improvement over feudalism, but already in a bad state by his time. For example: """ A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange, and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. [… I've cut out most of this paragraph, it's quite long …]. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons —the modern working class —the proletarians. """ > Say what you will but its quite funny to describe him as "dismissing" anything; he quite literally would not not shut up about it. I had to look up the word to make sure I wasn't misusing it, seems you and I are both using legit but incompatible senses of "dismiss" here. I mean "reject, deny, repudiate", you seem to think I meant "brush off, shrug off, forget" — the latter meanings would be, as you say, quite absurd. :)
elzbardico 3y ago
Don't count on people understanding the risks of something when they expect to make buckloads out of the thing. Lots of people here are AI maximalists because AI gave new breadth to the tired VC-backed startup hamster wheel.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Well, you are right. We have created a system of "artificial selection" where only the ideas the net the greatest short-term profit flourish. Unfortunately, this has been taken to a global scale with modern tech companies, and this is the sort of scenario where short-term thinking can do the most damage. I realize that almost everyone here will be against me, but I figure it is a good place to start a debate and face the fiercest opponents.
dvsfish 3y ago
I feel the chances for success are slim to none, but I'm surprised it has taken this long to see someone share this opinion. This is how I have felt for some time. I feel for the children born today.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Feel free to reach out and talk about it. My email is in my profile.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
And how exactly do you propose that we do that? Even if we pass laws forbidding AI, you still acknowledge the existence of criminals. They aren't going to stop just because there's a law against it. (Neither will foreign governments. If Russian disinformation is messing with the US's internal political conversations - and I suspect it is - then a Russian disinformation AI could be that on steroids. Now imagine that the US has stopped their own AI research, and so is unable to counter or control this.)
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  I propose a system or consortium of people that are united by a few simple rules. To summarize: (1) don't use AI and (2) preferentially support people who minimize their use of AI as much as possible. This consortium will also promote sustainable living in smaller communities, relying more on local talent and basic living sustenance as opposed to global corporations. This consortium will be more of a collection of local groups that rely mostly within themselves. Certainly, a good personal start for people with technology skills is: do not contribute to AI yourself, and don't use it for God's sake.

ben_w 3y ago

Calling AI "feudalism" feels to me a bit like how Karl Marx dismissed capitalism[0] as being basically the same as feudalism but with different faces when writing the Communist Manifesto. It might be a new and exciting kind of bad, but I doubt it will be anything that can reasonably be described as neo-feudalism. [0] and all the other things he didn't like

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Well, if a person wants to integrate with society and make any sort of decent living as society defines it, they already have to pay an enormous amount of money to keep various electronic devices like a computer. And unlike a tractor or a car, computers and phones are upgraded so frequently that we are locked into continually upgrading. Several software suites are becoming subscription-only, including Adobe which is required for a lot of creative work, especially in the publishing and illustrating world. The other day I went into a restaurant and they didn't even have a menu but required a QR code to read the menu! Now what if a community didn't want to pay the fee? How hard would it be to disconnect from being reliant on tech companies? N.B. It is important to take into account the sheer power of tech companies compared to traditional businesses you might rely on like the hardware store. The scope and range of their power is what makes it more like feudalism compared to how traditional societies were inter-reliant.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  These companies exist by agreement with societies and limiting their power can be done relatively easily if societies want to.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    Unfortunately, these companies exist by creating incremental inventions that at first are beneficial but only start to show their negative effects decades later. The initial improvements are somewhat addictive like a drug, so that limiting their power is akin to asking drug addicts to stop their habit.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Stopping the habit is not required when limiting their power.
beepbooptheory 3y ago
Marx does not say this at all in the Communist Manifesto. And further, if anything he was in awe of capitalism. He didn't write those 3000+ pages investigating and articulating capitalism because he simply "didn't like it." He saw it as a crucial and huge moment of history that we will one day evolve out of, not some bad thing that bad guys do. Say what you will but its quite funny to describe him as "dismissing" anything; he quite literally would not not shut up about it. Marx maybe dismissed Proudhon, but not Smith! Not Ricardo! Not even Malthus really. Drawing parallels is good, but you gotta make sure you know what you are talking about!
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Marx does not say this at all in the Communist Manifesto. And further, if anything he was in awe of capitalism As I read it, the Communist Manifesto puts each positive aspect of capitalism in the past tense, that it was an improvement over feudalism, but already in a bad state by his time. For example: """ A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange, and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. [… I've cut out most of this paragraph, it's quite long …]. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons —the modern working class —the proletarians. """ > Say what you will but its quite funny to describe him as "dismissing" anything; he quite literally would not not shut up about it. I had to look up the word to make sure I wasn't misusing it, seems you and I are both using legit but incompatible senses of "dismiss" here. I mean "reject, deny, repudiate", you seem to think I meant "brush off, shrug off, forget" — the latter meanings would be, as you say, quite absurd. :)

elzbardico 3y ago

Don't count on people understanding the risks of something when they expect to make buckloads out of the thing. Lots of people here are AI maximalists because AI gave new breadth to the tired VC-backed startup hamster wheel.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Well, you are right. We have created a system of "artificial selection" where only the ideas the net the greatest short-term profit flourish. Unfortunately, this has been taken to a global scale with modern tech companies, and this is the sort of scenario where short-term thinking can do the most damage. I realize that almost everyone here will be against me, but I figure it is a good place to start a debate and face the fiercest opponents.

dvsfish 3y ago

I feel the chances for success are slim to none, but I'm surprised it has taken this long to see someone share this opinion. This is how I have felt for some time. I feel for the children born today.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Feel free to reach out and talk about it. My email is in my profile.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

And how exactly do you propose that we do that? Even if we pass laws forbidding AI, you still acknowledge the existence of criminals. They aren't going to stop just because there's a law against it. (Neither will foreign governments. If Russian disinformation is messing with the US's internal political conversations - and I suspect it is - then a Russian disinformation AI could be that on steroids. Now imagine that the US has stopped their own AI research, and so is unable to counter or control this.)

vouaobrasil 3y ago
I propose a system or consortium of people that are united by a few simple rules. To summarize: (1) don't use AI and (2) preferentially support people who minimize their use of AI as much as possible. This consortium will also promote sustainable living in smaller communities, relying more on local talent and basic living sustenance as opposed to global corporations. This consortium will be more of a collection of local groups that rely mostly within themselves. Certainly, a good personal start for people with technology skills is: do not contribute to AI yourself, and don't use it for God's sake.