4 ms·

AI is a tool to supplement thinking. Wannabe AI police want to control what you think. They should be ridiculed and disparaged by everyone who believes in free

AI is a tool to supplement thinking. Wannabe AI police want to control what you think. They should be ridiculed and disparaged by everyone who believes in freedom of thought.

tsunamifury 3y ago
What if this is what most People want. What if people want thought police?
- bluefirebrand 3y ago
  From what I can see this is exactly what many people want. As long as the thought police is on their side, anyways.
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    Yea the paradox of freedom and the self. We all want to be free and everyone else to be free just like us. But “we live in a society”. I’m guessing people will realize at some point AGI can’t undo the great paradoxes of society like resource distribution and value conflict. And we will slowly learn that a lot of what keeps us where we are isn’t a lack of super intelligence. It’s that the search and map pattern for human survival in the universe is really really messy and the conflict is inherently a part of it to guard against over optimization paths.
    - upvote_test_act 3y ago
      ???
      - tsunamifury 3y ago
        Bot?
        upvote_test_act 3y ago
        lol
mathgradthrow 3y ago
"AI" is a tool to supplement lying. To a population that has already been softened up to it.
chongli 3y ago
The AI police already work for OpenAI. They work tirelessly to stop the model from generating bad output. Freedom of thought is not on the agenda.
coldbrewed 3y ago
AI is not an inert tool that you can wield; it's a crystallization of human beliefs, knowledge, and processes. It is vulnerable to biases and this vulnerability can't be neatly chopped out because it's impossible to fully remove biases from training data. It's significant to note that these biases don't have to be overt political biases; it can be a predisposition to use virgin materials over recycled, a tendency to generate JavaScript over Julia, etc cetera. Our available datesets are images of us and thus aren't predisposed to surpass our limitations. Given that AI models are bound to the same biases that society struggles with, which ones do we encode in the models and which ones do we mitigate? Do we try to acknowledge and mitigate those limitations or say "This is fine" and ship our current organizational and political limitations? If we want to stop fighting the same damn wars over and over again then our machine models have to be designed to account for our biases and limitations. Do you have suggestions for alternate ways to improve our models aside from explicit error correction?
- logicchains 3y ago
  These "biases" in data are a reflection of reality. If by default an LLM refers to engineers as "he" more than "she", it's because engineers are more likely to be male than female. Most people would prefer an AI whose model of reality matches actual reality rather than one that matches what some Silicon Valley leftists think reality should be. Those biases are only a problem if you think the main purpose of an AI is to moralise.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - anon7725 3y ago
    Reality != whatever gets mentioned the most on the internet
    - logicchains 3y ago
      The "AI ethicists" aren't trying to make AI better match reality, they're trying to make it match how they think reality should be.
logicchains 3y ago
They don't want to control what you think, they want to control what information you have access to, so you can't form conclusions that they wouldn't like,
anon7725 3y ago
I’ve yet to see any serious discussion about what will be done if generative AI starts eliminating middle class white collar jobs. Everyone’s deeply up their own asses about AGI, existential risks, this will solve climate change, bias, etc etc. Nobody seems to discuss the risk that millions of white-collar jobs with little clout (paralegals, admin clerks, logistics coordinators, some portion of software developers, etc) are eliminated. I think the largest risk in the next 10-20 years is that the tech gets good enough to shed jobs without replacing them (certainly not at a 1:1 ratio), furthering inequality, social division, etc. in the US at least, it seems that any broad policy proposal to address this is DOA.
- logicchains 3y ago
  >Nobody seems to discuss the risk that millions of white-collar jobs with little clout (paralegals, admin clerks, logistics coordinators, some portion of software developers, etc) are eliminated. Economists have discussed it, and just like with previous automation, there'll always be new jobs as human wants are unlimited (and by the time AI are able to do every job humans can do, they won't be willing to do it for free).
  - coldbrewed 3y ago
    > Economists have discussed it, and just like with previous automation, there'll always be new job Past performance is not indicative of future results. > human wants are unlimited Physical resources are limited, and producing work requires the allocation of capital. If people want to work but cannot access the basic tools and resources to work then they'll languish in unemployment. Society doesn't just default to a productive society with high employment; these conditions need to be nurtured. Given the current state of economic inequality we're trending away from conditions that will lead to full employment if AI wipes out large swathes of jobs.
    - jmye 3y ago
      > Given the current state of economic inequality we're trending away from conditions that will lead to full employment if AI wipes out large swathes of jobs. Based on what evidence? Do you think better ML will create no new opportunity? What does economic inequality have to do with whether new companies or services are built using new ML tools?

AI is a tool to supplement thinking. Wannabe AI police want to control what you think. They should be ridiculed and disparaged by everyone who believes in freedom of thought.

tsunamifury 3y ago

What if this is what most People want. What if people want thought police?

bluefirebrand 3y ago
From what I can see this is exactly what many people want. As long as the thought police is on their side, anyways.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  Yea the paradox of freedom and the self. We all want to be free and everyone else to be free just like us. But “we live in a society”. I’m guessing people will realize at some point AGI can’t undo the great paradoxes of society like resource distribution and value conflict. And we will slowly learn that a lot of what keeps us where we are isn’t a lack of super intelligence. It’s that the search and map pattern for human survival in the universe is really really messy and the conflict is inherently a part of it to guard against over optimization paths.
  - upvote_test_act 3y ago
    ???
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      Bot?
      - upvote_test_act 3y ago
        lol

mathgradthrow 3y ago

"AI" is a tool to supplement lying. To a population that has already been softened up to it.

chongli 3y ago

The AI police already work for OpenAI. They work tirelessly to stop the model from generating bad output. Freedom of thought is not on the agenda.

coldbrewed 3y ago

AI is not an inert tool that you can wield; it's a crystallization of human beliefs, knowledge, and processes. It is vulnerable to biases and this vulnerability can't be neatly chopped out because it's impossible to fully remove biases from training data. It's significant to note that these biases don't have to be overt political biases; it can be a predisposition to use virgin materials over recycled, a tendency to generate JavaScript over Julia, etc cetera. Our available datesets are images of us and thus aren't predisposed to surpass our limitations. Given that AI models are bound to the same biases that society struggles with, which ones do we encode in the models and which ones do we mitigate? Do we try to acknowledge and mitigate those limitations or say "This is fine" and ship our current organizational and political limitations? If we want to stop fighting the same damn wars over and over again then our machine models have to be designed to account for our biases and limitations. Do you have suggestions for alternate ways to improve our models aside from explicit error correction?

logicchains 3y ago
These "biases" in data are a reflection of reality. If by default an LLM refers to engineers as "he" more than "she", it's because engineers are more likely to be male than female. Most people would prefer an AI whose model of reality matches actual reality rather than one that matches what some Silicon Valley leftists think reality should be. Those biases are only a problem if you think the main purpose of an AI is to moralise.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- anon7725 3y ago
  Reality != whatever gets mentioned the most on the internet
  - logicchains 3y ago
    The "AI ethicists" aren't trying to make AI better match reality, they're trying to make it match how they think reality should be.

logicchains 3y ago

They don't want to control what you think, they want to control what information you have access to, so you can't form conclusions that they wouldn't like,

anon7725 3y ago

I’ve yet to see any serious discussion about what will be done if generative AI starts eliminating middle class white collar jobs. Everyone’s deeply up their own asses about AGI, existential risks, this will solve climate change, bias, etc etc. Nobody seems to discuss the risk that millions of white-collar jobs with little clout (paralegals, admin clerks, logistics coordinators, some portion of software developers, etc) are eliminated. I think the largest risk in the next 10-20 years is that the tech gets good enough to shed jobs without replacing them (certainly not at a 1:1 ratio), furthering inequality, social division, etc. in the US at least, it seems that any broad policy proposal to address this is DOA.

logicchains 3y ago
>Nobody seems to discuss the risk that millions of white-collar jobs with little clout (paralegals, admin clerks, logistics coordinators, some portion of software developers, etc) are eliminated. Economists have discussed it, and just like with previous automation, there'll always be new jobs as human wants are unlimited (and by the time AI are able to do every job humans can do, they won't be willing to do it for free).
- coldbrewed 3y ago
  > Economists have discussed it, and just like with previous automation, there'll always be new job Past performance is not indicative of future results. > human wants are unlimited Physical resources are limited, and producing work requires the allocation of capital. If people want to work but cannot access the basic tools and resources to work then they'll languish in unemployment. Society doesn't just default to a productive society with high employment; these conditions need to be nurtured. Given the current state of economic inequality we're trending away from conditions that will lead to full employment if AI wipes out large swathes of jobs.
  - jmye 3y ago
    > Given the current state of economic inequality we're trending away from conditions that will lead to full employment if AI wipes out large swathes of jobs. Based on what evidence? Do you think better ML will create no new opportunity? What does economic inequality have to do with whether new companies or services are built using new ML tools?