3 ms·

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." -Winston Churchill A paradox of politics is that the desire to

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." -Winston Churchill A paradox of politics is that the desire to not talk about politics favors the status quo, necessitating the need to talk about politics. It's obvious to me that AI is being rolled out in just exactly the wrong way at multiple levels, creating misaligned incentives and a perversion of original goals. But the knee-jerk reactions to it that drive the creation of draconian policies were predicted almost a century ago. It seems that everything we hold sacred is under attack in these times. The smart bet seems to be on ensh@ttification. Because the organizations that were formerly stewards of online freedom have abdicated their responsibility. I find it helpful to remember that every misstep by established players creates an opportunity for newcomers to compete.

MSFT_Edging 3y ago
This is an important comment. Instead of "AI"(be real, llms and stable diffusion) being developed openly and studied without a profit motive, it's been thrust into the cheap world of VCs looking to extract any profit whatsoever from it, nearly immediately. This has caused these "AI" tools to be used to steal and rehash artists work(cheapening artists because tech bros and MBAs resent art and the time it takes to perfect). Cheapening human labor(why pay a person to understand anything when you can have an llm do 20% of the job and worse). These AI tools were thrown in the deep end with a singular purpose: Cheapen what was thought to be protected from computers, while not providing any real value to the layperson. The average person can maybe get a funny joke, a bad few lines of code, or an ugly bespoke AI image for their medium article, but the true winners are the ones cutting jobs en masse before the tech has even matured, so both the employee and the customer gets a worse product while the MBA's show a solid quarterly report after they ran a knife across their workforce's neck. Those with power and money have continued to show they will not use technology for any positive societal purpose until they are forced to with regulation. So we're forced to neuter the technology before it can really develop. It's like one child playing violently with a toy, forcing the teacher to take the toy away from everyone else.
- stateofinquiry 3y ago
  There should be no surprise that "those with power and money" will not willingly apply "technology" for social good. It should be expected, rather. Your comment brings to mind Edward R. Murrow's speech in 1958 about the direction of television (certainly would be "high tech" back then!) He and others envisioned education, information, and enlightenment from this technology. Well, you know what we got instead. Here is a summary of the speech, and you can hear the whole thing on youtube if you like- still absolutely relevant. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2014/today-in-media-history-edward-r-murrow-challenged-the-broadcast-industry-in-his-1958-rtnda-speech/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2014/today-in-medi... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIhy0T7Q48Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIhy0T7Q48Y We can see the same thing with other newer media; Ex. video games. I don't have solutions per se, though I wish this pattern could be different. The profit motive and appealing to base instinct seems to always "win".
  - MSFT_Edging 3y ago
    I'm aware it should be expected. The target of my comment is specifically the "well profit=good" crowd on here. It's to point out the innate contradiction in how we speak about technology compared to the guaranteed outcome in our system. We're doomed as a species if we keep believing in the magical market as a primary mover for said species. We'll stall in a circlejerk of ads and stock buybacks and never accomplish anything, because any good use for technology is locked behind a gate due to the lack of profit. Any improvement in medicine is behind lock and key because the pharmaceutical companies "need to make back their investment" despite massive gov funding. We're killing ourselves here with the spectacle that this system is either working or worth saving.
    - stateofinquiry 3y ago
      True points, and I apologize for missing you actual point and wandering off a bit. We probably need another social model for technological development specifically- but I am not sure what it might be. If there is anything useful to salvage from my previous its that this issue has been with us for a long while.
networkchad 3y ago
[dead]

MSFT_Edging 3y ago

This is an important comment. Instead of "AI"(be real, llms and stable diffusion) being developed openly and studied without a profit motive, it's been thrust into the cheap world of VCs looking to extract any profit whatsoever from it, nearly immediately. This has caused these "AI" tools to be used to steal and rehash artists work(cheapening artists because tech bros and MBAs resent art and the time it takes to perfect). Cheapening human labor(why pay a person to understand anything when you can have an llm do 20% of the job and worse). These AI tools were thrown in the deep end with a singular purpose: Cheapen what was thought to be protected from computers, while not providing any real value to the layperson. The average person can maybe get a funny joke, a bad few lines of code, or an ugly bespoke AI image for their medium article, but the true winners are the ones cutting jobs en masse before the tech has even matured, so both the employee and the customer gets a worse product while the MBA's show a solid quarterly report after they ran a knife across their workforce's neck. Those with power and money have continued to show they will not use technology for any positive societal purpose until they are forced to with regulation. So we're forced to neuter the technology before it can really develop. It's like one child playing violently with a toy, forcing the teacher to take the toy away from everyone else.

stateofinquiry 3y ago
There should be no surprise that "those with power and money" will not willingly apply "technology" for social good. It should be expected, rather. Your comment brings to mind Edward R. Murrow's speech in 1958 about the direction of television (certainly would be "high tech" back then!) He and others envisioned education, information, and enlightenment from this technology. Well, you know what we got instead. Here is a summary of the speech, and you can hear the whole thing on youtube if you like- still absolutely relevant. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2014/today-in-media-history-edward-r-murrow-challenged-the-broadcast-industry-in-his-1958-rtnda-speech/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2014/today-in-medi... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIhy0T7Q48Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIhy0T7Q48Y We can see the same thing with other newer media; Ex. video games. I don't have solutions per se, though I wish this pattern could be different. The profit motive and appealing to base instinct seems to always "win".
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago
  I'm aware it should be expected. The target of my comment is specifically the "well profit=good" crowd on here. It's to point out the innate contradiction in how we speak about technology compared to the guaranteed outcome in our system. We're doomed as a species if we keep believing in the magical market as a primary mover for said species. We'll stall in a circlejerk of ads and stock buybacks and never accomplish anything, because any good use for technology is locked behind a gate due to the lack of profit. Any improvement in medicine is behind lock and key because the pharmaceutical companies "need to make back their investment" despite massive gov funding. We're killing ourselves here with the spectacle that this system is either working or worth saving.
  - stateofinquiry 3y ago
    True points, and I apologize for missing you actual point and wandering off a bit. We probably need another social model for technological development specifically- but I am not sure what it might be. If there is anything useful to salvage from my previous its that this issue has been with us for a long while.

networkchad 3y ago

[dead]