3 ms·

Not surprising. Despite the enormous energy costs and the threat to humanity by creating technology that we can't control, governments and corporations will bui

Not surprising. Despite the enormous energy costs and the threat to humanity by creating technology that we can't control, governments and corporations will build bigger and more sophisticated models just because they have to do so to compete. It is the prisoner's dilemma: we end up with a super-advanced AI that will disrupt and make society worse because entities are competing where the metric of success is short-term monetary gain. It's ridiculous. Humanity should give up this useless development of AI.

danielbln 3y ago
It might be dangerous, but how is it useless? There is also an enormous positive gain to be had in terms of autonomous discovery, science progress and so on. And prisoner's dilemma means "we" will not stop pursuing this, even of there is a net negative benefit to humanity overall.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Yes, I believe there is a net negative benefit. I do not think there is an enormous positive gain. Science progress in my opinion has gone too far in many respects and we should not be able to generate science so easily because we will not have the wisdom to use it. Although I love science, it's use is far too lackadaisical now -- see for example the climate crisis and efficient resource extraction of fossil fuels. Then we can imagine things like life-extending drugs, immunity from all disease (bad because it implies overpopulation), methods to generate oxygen (bad because it will mean we won't value the natural ecosystem as much), etc. Smartphones, computer technology (human-isolating and community-destroying), etc. Pretty much all modern inventions are making life worse.
  - barnabee 3y ago
    This reads like a combination of pessimism and nostalgia has allowed you to cherry pick the worst of now and the best of the past and conince yourself it is net bad. I see all of these negatives, and agree it is clear there is much that is bad in the world (there always has been) and much to be improved (ditto), including new problems created by science, technology, and human greed & selfishness. But I also see many positives and benefits, I see many problems that used to exist and don't anymore, and I see much evidence that we continue on average, to make progress. When I look to the past I do not wish I lived there. Science have many times saved my friends and families' lives or enabled them to live more fully after an accident or sickness Science made climate change possible but greed, raw capitalism, etc. put us on the path there. Science makes it possible to find a way out, slow or even reverse it eventually, and mitigate the worst results. Populations are shrinking in developed countries despite people living longer. Computers and the internet created and connected many new communities, too. The negative effects are again often the result of unbridled capitalism. Young people especially are fighting back against the negative effects and taking control, building technology to manage those hamrful effects. etc… I believe both that: (a) it is not possible to stop humans acquiring and using knowledge, advancing science, developing technology, and evolving culturally and socially; and (b) we shouldn't want to, even though it means we will create new problems and lose (or consign to a smaller "museum exhibit" role) some aspects of the culture and societies we have today, because on balance we will solve more and bigger problems than we create and build better and more interesting cultures and societies than those of the past. It's not without existential risks, but those are overstated or analysed pseudoscientifically at best, by many of those (and certainly the loudest) who worry about them.
    - Zpalmtree 3y ago
      The positive effects are also the results of capitalism
      - barnabee 3y ago
        Yes, to a large extent they are.
  - ArekDymalski 3y ago
    > Science progress in my opinion has gone too far in many respects and we should not be able to generate science so easily because we will not have the wisdom to use it. I think it was always the case. The wisdom actually comes from mistakes too, not from a priori speculations. Especially as all new solutions/technologies have been criticized and judged as dangerous, frivolous, unnecessary, morally wrong etc. Bikes, cars, street lights,social equality and so long.
  - Denote6737 3y ago
    It sounds like you are a luddite.
uticus 3y ago
"First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" - Contact
omneity 3y ago
What makes you think this technology is out of control? If anything a 1T param model would only run in like 5-10 computers in this world. As much control as it gets. By the way this is doomer rhetoric. Bashing scientific advancements as dangerous or useless by trying to attach vacuously scary ideas that are as speculative as they are outlandish.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  It's hardly vacuous. What about these scientific advancements? 1. Fossil fuel extraction -- we are killing our planet. 2. Plastic chemistry -- there are 5 trillion pieces of plastic in the ocean killing seabirds, turtles, fish (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913) 3. Concrete engineering -- building cities that move people away from a connection with nature 4. Veterinary medicine -- supporting global meat industry that is akin to torture on animals 5. Vehicle engineering -- capable of making vehicles that can kill MILLIONS of square meters of forest. Our technology allows us to live comfortable lives but ONLY at the EXPENSE of millions of nonhuman animals (wild and domestic) that are KILLED every single day for our comforts. We dish out untold violence every second for our advancements.
  - smokel 3y ago
    As much as I'd like to agree with your sentiment, it is a rather flawed argument to state that if some elements of a set have a property, that all elements must have that property. There are scientific breakthroughs such as the proof of Fermat's theorem [1], for which I find it very hard to envision a way in which it will kill our planet. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27s_proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27s_proof_of_Fermat%27...
  - mcosta 3y ago
    Well, I don't care about nonhuman animals. And being sincere, I don't care about 99% of human animals. I cry for the deaths of my loved ones, and forget the rest. It is the only way to remain sane.
skerit 3y ago
Your profile says "I am not rabidly against technology, but I promote a BALANCED, severely critical look at it" "Humanity should give up this useless development of AI" So balanced.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  I do not mean balanced against every technology. Some technologies might have some merit. I do believe that AI has no merit, that people developing it are doing is a disservice, and that it should be completely destroyed. OF COURSE, there are some technologies that I think are completely bad, including chemical weapons. In fact, I believe AI to be on the level of chemical weapons essentially.
  - jwestbury 3y ago
    Can you elaborate on this view? Chemical weapons seem to have no redeeming qualities. LLMs have plenty -- I use OpenAI-backed products at work quite regularly, and find they've increased my productivity and my general happiness with my job.
  - fardinahsan 3y ago
    I don't think saying you have a bone to pick with "AI" is doing your message any favors. What are you specifically against LinearRegression? XGBoost? ResNet? LLMs? AlphaFold?
- swores 3y ago
  Having a balanced view about technology doesn't mean considering every type of technology to be 50% good and 50% bad. I disagree with their view on AI but also disagree with your criticism.

danielbln 3y ago

It might be dangerous, but how is it useless? There is also an enormous positive gain to be had in terms of autonomous discovery, science progress and so on. And prisoner's dilemma means "we" will not stop pursuing this, even of there is a net negative benefit to humanity overall.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Yes, I believe there is a net negative benefit. I do not think there is an enormous positive gain. Science progress in my opinion has gone too far in many respects and we should not be able to generate science so easily because we will not have the wisdom to use it. Although I love science, it's use is far too lackadaisical now -- see for example the climate crisis and efficient resource extraction of fossil fuels. Then we can imagine things like life-extending drugs, immunity from all disease (bad because it implies overpopulation), methods to generate oxygen (bad because it will mean we won't value the natural ecosystem as much), etc. Smartphones, computer technology (human-isolating and community-destroying), etc. Pretty much all modern inventions are making life worse.
- barnabee 3y ago
  This reads like a combination of pessimism and nostalgia has allowed you to cherry pick the worst of now and the best of the past and conince yourself it is net bad. I see all of these negatives, and agree it is clear there is much that is bad in the world (there always has been) and much to be improved (ditto), including new problems created by science, technology, and human greed & selfishness. But I also see many positives and benefits, I see many problems that used to exist and don't anymore, and I see much evidence that we continue on average, to make progress. When I look to the past I do not wish I lived there. Science have many times saved my friends and families' lives or enabled them to live more fully after an accident or sickness Science made climate change possible but greed, raw capitalism, etc. put us on the path there. Science makes it possible to find a way out, slow or even reverse it eventually, and mitigate the worst results. Populations are shrinking in developed countries despite people living longer. Computers and the internet created and connected many new communities, too. The negative effects are again often the result of unbridled capitalism. Young people especially are fighting back against the negative effects and taking control, building technology to manage those hamrful effects. etc… I believe both that: (a) it is not possible to stop humans acquiring and using knowledge, advancing science, developing technology, and evolving culturally and socially; and (b) we shouldn't want to, even though it means we will create new problems and lose (or consign to a smaller "museum exhibit" role) some aspects of the culture and societies we have today, because on balance we will solve more and bigger problems than we create and build better and more interesting cultures and societies than those of the past. It's not without existential risks, but those are overstated or analysed pseudoscientifically at best, by many of those (and certainly the loudest) who worry about them.
  - Zpalmtree 3y ago
    The positive effects are also the results of capitalism
    - barnabee 3y ago
      Yes, to a large extent they are.
- ArekDymalski 3y ago
  > Science progress in my opinion has gone too far in many respects and we should not be able to generate science so easily because we will not have the wisdom to use it. I think it was always the case. The wisdom actually comes from mistakes too, not from a priori speculations. Especially as all new solutions/technologies have been criticized and judged as dangerous, frivolous, unnecessary, morally wrong etc. Bikes, cars, street lights,social equality and so long.
- Denote6737 3y ago
  It sounds like you are a luddite.

uticus 3y ago

"First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" - Contact

omneity 3y ago

What makes you think this technology is out of control? If anything a 1T param model would only run in like 5-10 computers in this world. As much control as it gets. By the way this is doomer rhetoric. Bashing scientific advancements as dangerous or useless by trying to attach vacuously scary ideas that are as speculative as they are outlandish.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
It's hardly vacuous. What about these scientific advancements? 1. Fossil fuel extraction -- we are killing our planet. 2. Plastic chemistry -- there are 5 trillion pieces of plastic in the ocean killing seabirds, turtles, fish (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913) 3. Concrete engineering -- building cities that move people away from a connection with nature 4. Veterinary medicine -- supporting global meat industry that is akin to torture on animals 5. Vehicle engineering -- capable of making vehicles that can kill MILLIONS of square meters of forest. Our technology allows us to live comfortable lives but ONLY at the EXPENSE of millions of nonhuman animals (wild and domestic) that are KILLED every single day for our comforts. We dish out untold violence every second for our advancements.
- smokel 3y ago
  As much as I'd like to agree with your sentiment, it is a rather flawed argument to state that if some elements of a set have a property, that all elements must have that property. There are scientific breakthroughs such as the proof of Fermat's theorem [1], for which I find it very hard to envision a way in which it will kill our planet. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27s_proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27s_proof_of_Fermat%27...
- mcosta 3y ago
  Well, I don't care about nonhuman animals. And being sincere, I don't care about 99% of human animals. I cry for the deaths of my loved ones, and forget the rest. It is the only way to remain sane.

skerit 3y ago

Your profile says "I am not rabidly against technology, but I promote a BALANCED, severely critical look at it" "Humanity should give up this useless development of AI" So balanced.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
I do not mean balanced against every technology. Some technologies might have some merit. I do believe that AI has no merit, that people developing it are doing is a disservice, and that it should be completely destroyed. OF COURSE, there are some technologies that I think are completely bad, including chemical weapons. In fact, I believe AI to be on the level of chemical weapons essentially.
- jwestbury 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on this view? Chemical weapons seem to have no redeeming qualities. LLMs have plenty -- I use OpenAI-backed products at work quite regularly, and find they've increased my productivity and my general happiness with my job.
- fardinahsan 3y ago
  I don't think saying you have a bone to pick with "AI" is doing your message any favors. What are you specifically against LinearRegression? XGBoost? ResNet? LLMs? AlphaFold?
swores 3y ago
Having a balanced view about technology doesn't mean considering every type of technology to be 50% good and 50% bad. I disagree with their view on AI but also disagree with your criticism.