3 ms·

I'm not a fan of this sort of takes. History has shown time and time again that pretty much any technological innovation is a net good, despite the protests of

by lxe 3y ago

I'm not a fan of this sort of takes. History has shown time and time again that pretty much any technological innovation is a net good, despite the protests of the luddites. Progressive creatives see this type of tech as a tool to simplify and re-adapt their process. The post author is 16, and an aspiring animator. If their attitude is to be scared of tech, instead of being insanely curious about it, they are not on the right path to become a creative, regardless of AI.

labster 3y ago
Steam and combustion engines might be a net good for humanity, but weren’t good for millions of species in the current mass extinction. I think it’s a similar worry that AI will only be a good for the very top of the food chain.
- lxe 3y ago
  > Steam and combustion engines might be a net good for humanity, but weren’t good for millions of species in the current mass extinction. This is true, but what followed also led to lifting probably billions of people out of hunger, and saving the lives of billions of children, increasing life expectancy by over 30 years, led to insane leaps of literacy, etc, etc... > AI will only be a good for the very top of the food chain. With FUD being spread like this, yeah we're at a risk of exactly this being the case, once draconian regulation is passed by clueless lawmakers. As it stands right now, open source and locally-running AI is available to nearly all, cheaply (with an incentive of becoming even cheaper). Aside from Sora being leaps and bounds beyond everyone's expectation, the OSS world of local LLMs, Llama, Mistral, Stable Diffusion, and the likes, is very competitive in terms of quality and utility to the big closed services. The issue is the DISTRIBUTION of the net positives. And closing and gating the progress will only create more imbalance in how the positive impact of this tech is distributed.
aaomidi 3y ago
In the long run, yes. In the short term it ruins peoples lives.
janice1999 3y ago
> History has shown time and time again that pretty much any technological innovation is a net good Technology can be used for good or ill. IBMs counting machines made accountants lives easier but also made the Nazi death camps more efficient. See also lead in gas, DDT, nerve gas, CFCs PFAS etc etc. You can argue that gaining more knowledge has proved beneficial but not every advancement or advanced product is guaranteed to be a net good. Some developments, like the Nobel Prize winning DDT, were praised as amazing advancements in their day only to have catastrophic unseen effects later.
thefz 3y ago
> If their attitude is to be scared of tech, instead of being insanely curious about it, they are not on the right path to become a creative Might or might not be, but it's not up to you to gatekeep creativity.

by lxe 3y ago

labster 3y ago

Steam and combustion engines might be a net good for humanity, but weren’t good for millions of species in the current mass extinction. I think it’s a similar worry that AI will only be a good for the very top of the food chain.

lxe 3y ago
> Steam and combustion engines might be a net good for humanity, but weren’t good for millions of species in the current mass extinction. This is true, but what followed also led to lifting probably billions of people out of hunger, and saving the lives of billions of children, increasing life expectancy by over 30 years, led to insane leaps of literacy, etc, etc... > AI will only be a good for the very top of the food chain. With FUD being spread like this, yeah we're at a risk of exactly this being the case, once draconian regulation is passed by clueless lawmakers. As it stands right now, open source and locally-running AI is available to nearly all, cheaply (with an incentive of becoming even cheaper). Aside from Sora being leaps and bounds beyond everyone's expectation, the OSS world of local LLMs, Llama, Mistral, Stable Diffusion, and the likes, is very competitive in terms of quality and utility to the big closed services. The issue is the DISTRIBUTION of the net positives. And closing and gating the progress will only create more imbalance in how the positive impact of this tech is distributed.

aaomidi 3y ago

In the long run, yes. In the short term it ruins peoples lives.

janice1999 3y ago

> History has shown time and time again that pretty much any technological innovation is a net good Technology can be used for good or ill. IBMs counting machines made accountants lives easier but also made the Nazi death camps more efficient. See also lead in gas, DDT, nerve gas, CFCs PFAS etc etc. You can argue that gaining more knowledge has proved beneficial but not every advancement or advanced product is guaranteed to be a net good. Some developments, like the Nobel Prize winning DDT, were praised as amazing advancements in their day only to have catastrophic unseen effects later.

thefz 3y ago

> If their attitude is to be scared of tech, instead of being insanely curious about it, they are not on the right path to become a creative Might or might not be, but it's not up to you to gatekeep creativity.