6 ms·

What I always wonder is what is the end-goal of the current AI movement? What's the point of it all? I see people talking about being more productive and things

by mns 3y ago

What I always wonder is what is the end-goal of the current AI movement? What's the point of it all? I see people talking about being more productive and things like that, but for a lot of people, what does more productive actually mean when you are unemployed? To me it seems that AI is harmful, like the author says, for society, mostly because it seems that the direction where we are going is just to maximise profits and make a lot of money. If we remove "humanity" from the productive world, what does making money mean in the end, where will it come from? Because it doesn't look like the world is heading to: these huge corporations will now support you to be creative and live a free life with no stress and work, because AI is doing all that, it will just mean that they will optimise everything to make as much money as possible, to a point, completely disregarding our humanity. In the end some people will live in an "Elysium" like world, where the most of us will be living in some sort of dystopian underworld fighting for survival.

bamboozled 3y ago
I kind of laugh when hear AI people talk about the thing self replicating and improving exponentially , improve to where ?
- krapp 3y ago
  Essentially Godhood. There is a reason the singularity has been called "the rapture for nerds" for decades.
  - Vecr 3y ago
    "...And once we've got a lead, we'll solve alignment at our leisure Then even odds, we'll be as gods,' said Sam to Eliezer"
- berkes 3y ago
  > improve to where I guess "improve on a vector we put it on". E.g. the dystopian idea of "Give AI with autonomy some power and tell it to improve itself until it can solve climate change". A nice vector. Except one with a real danger of "solving climate change" by simply eliminating 99% of humans. Or, more practically, a vector "become better than X¹ at doing Y so our company can take over the niche that does Y and make profit". Improve to write better code, improve to make popular music, improve to write more viral content and so on. ¹ X the variable, placeholder, not the sewer formally known as twitter.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bamboozled 3y ago
    If the answer was to wipe out humans, then it would be a pretty dumb solution no?
    - snapcaster 3y ago
      It does seem like it would be a lot higher effort than others, but if the AI is easily able to engineer a plague maybe it's the easiest path
      - bamboozled 3y ago
        It's not solving "climate change" though is it?
    - berkes 3y ago
      Depends on the goal. "Save the earth", then no; it's probably the only viable one even. But quite certainly easier than cutting carbon emissions in societies that don't want to change. "Save humans" then certainly dumb. Both would be different vectors.
      - bamboozled 3y ago
        Assuming running billions of GPUs to run AI will actually be better off for the earth?
        berkes 3y ago
        Yes. Entire IT industry is peanuts compared to what we do to produce food (meat), haul stuff around, make stuff, and haul humans around. It truly does not compare. Witch does not mean I think we can ignore any win. But GPUs that run AI (or that secure cryptocurrencies for that matter) aren't the low-hanging fruit. Any win is important, so curbing that is important, IMHO. But, again, not the low hanging fruit. That really is flying/driving people around the world, shipping stuff, making stuff and eating (meat)¹. ¹ Emphasizing meat because when talking about low-hanging fruit, that's where the biggest win is. By far.
- segh 3y ago
  Improve in intelligence and capability.
  - bamboozled 3y ago
    to what end?
    - sandspar 3y ago
      To what end is any extraneous intelligence put to? Much of what we value most was created due to extraneous intelligence.
Vecr 3y ago
What people like Sam Altman claim the end goal is? ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) ~~takes over~~ optimizes the world, abolishing suffering and death forever. Well, hopefully it's not too nasty, living in someone else's dream and all.
- bamboozled 3y ago
  I don’t think he really believes that.
  - Vecr 3y ago
    I mean, I don't think it's likely to happen. It was the old Yudkowsky/Bostrom line, but I don't know how many people believe it anymore.
  - sandspar 3y ago
    Nobody knows whether to trust Sam Altman when he says something. That's one of his most salient personality features and widely remarked upon.
- xyzzy123 3y ago
  Isn't the world already kind of like that ("somebody else's dream"), just with "nobody at the wheel"? Like, technological society has "taken over" and there's no real way for humanity to opt out of it. We all have tiny bits of agency / freedom but for the most part our lives are bounded and constrained by the gigantic complex systems which support yet trap us.
- corobo 3y ago
  I'm sure he'll realise one day that to do that the super AI will have to get rid of money (after figuring out how to get us to post-scarcity, of course) - or at least demand it be redistributed fairly. Ain't no way the millionaires and billionaires of the world are going to accept being on equal footing with the poors, haha. Outside of the folks that fear Skynet, I imagine this is the real concern with alignment. How can a being of pure logic look past the hoarding of resources? If a monkey in captivity was hoarding all the food we'd step in and make sure the other monkeys had food to eat. I have to imagine the next intelligence above us would consider doing the same for us if given the power to do so. We'll never get to a point without an "Us vs Them", or "Have and Have Nots" - it's tragic, and I really hope I'm wrong, but I have infinite doubt on this one. Having said that I'll give anything a go, we're still stuck in the age of monarchies over here on Normal Island. AI wants to take over? I'm down to give it a shot as long as it promises to not wear a crown during a recession, haha
card_zero 3y ago
Unemployed copywriters roam the radioactive wasteland beyond the wall. They survive by eating one another. Inside the wall, the remnant of what was once civilization is in constant sectarian warfare between various cults, whose members believe in different deepfake videos, and with every passing year the truth about reality is buried a little deeper under generated media content. Nah, I'm center bottom, neither scared nor excited by it.
thuuuomas 3y ago
I agree with your concerns. To me, it seems like AI boosters subscribe to the ideology of Infinite Growth Forever & all their claims of “AI creating new types of employment that will provide for displaced workers” rest on that hollow rhetoric of prosperity gospel. Their optimism on behalf of the to-be-displaced is mere PR & not stopping them from privately wishing that the proles, who are Not Gonna Make It, Have Fun Staying Poor.
justanotherjoe 3y ago
The goal is to grow. Capitalism has growth imperative. It is the subtext behind everything. The moment growth stops, you dont stay the same, you die. So don't be mad if the 'next patch' sucks, we're in a train and there's no stopping it.
- sandspar 3y ago
  Life has a growth imperative. Frogs don't need capitalism to breed until they reach their environment's carrying capacity.
- Sateeshm 3y ago
  Snowpiercer
entropi 3y ago
>What I always wonder is what is the end-goal of the current AI movement? What's the point of it all? I also share this view. I would also argue that this is not even about the productivity. I mean, I don't think the currently automated parts were ever the bottlenecks in any good products. There are already more stuff being produced every year from a single publisher that is more than I can consume. And most of it is just shit. Think of Ubisoft games. They are already churning out a few new games every year, each of them chock full of beautiful assets in a very boring world, with an extremely repetitive shitty gameplay. And now with AI they can produce even more beautiful assets with even more shitty gameplay and even more boring worlds, I guess. Artists were already mostly a starving bunch (meaning the supply was already higher than the demand), good writers (and other auteurs) with strong vision were what was rare. And now, as humanity, we decided to divert some of the best engineering talent to automate the former? Why though, what is the point, really? I don't know when was the last time I really felt bored. I am sure I am not alone in that. What is the point of exponentially increasing the content production rate? I am really struggling to understand the appeal here.
- sandspar 3y ago
  I trust that people will come up with interesting uses for the new technology. > In the early 1940s, IBM's president, Thomas J Watson, reputedly said: "I think there is a world market for about five computers."
  - entropi 3y ago
    That may or may not be a fair point; admittedly I can not see the future, but you could say the same for everything. Including things like "the solutions in search of a problem". What is for sure is that currently I cannot see how it is solving any real, painful problems.

by mns 3y ago

bamboozled 3y ago

I kind of laugh when hear AI people talk about the thing self replicating and improving exponentially , improve to where ?

krapp 3y ago
Essentially Godhood. There is a reason the singularity has been called "the rapture for nerds" for decades.
- Vecr 3y ago
  "...And once we've got a lead, we'll solve alignment at our leisure Then even odds, we'll be as gods,' said Sam to Eliezer"
berkes 3y ago
> improve to where I guess "improve on a vector we put it on". E.g. the dystopian idea of "Give AI with autonomy some power and tell it to improve itself until it can solve climate change". A nice vector. Except one with a real danger of "solving climate change" by simply eliminating 99% of humans. Or, more practically, a vector "become better than X¹ at doing Y so our company can take over the niche that does Y and make profit". Improve to write better code, improve to make popular music, improve to write more viral content and so on. ¹ X the variable, placeholder, not the sewer formally known as twitter.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bamboozled 3y ago
  If the answer was to wipe out humans, then it would be a pretty dumb solution no?
  - snapcaster 3y ago
    It does seem like it would be a lot higher effort than others, but if the AI is easily able to engineer a plague maybe it's the easiest path
    - bamboozled 3y ago
      It's not solving "climate change" though is it?
  - berkes 3y ago
    Depends on the goal. "Save the earth", then no; it's probably the only viable one even. But quite certainly easier than cutting carbon emissions in societies that don't want to change. "Save humans" then certainly dumb. Both would be different vectors.
    - bamboozled 3y ago
      Assuming running billions of GPUs to run AI will actually be better off for the earth?
      - berkes 3y ago
        Yes. Entire IT industry is peanuts compared to what we do to produce food (meat), haul stuff around, make stuff, and haul humans around. It truly does not compare. Witch does not mean I think we can ignore any win. But GPUs that run AI (or that secure cryptocurrencies for that matter) aren't the low-hanging fruit. Any win is important, so curbing that is important, IMHO. But, again, not the low hanging fruit. That really is flying/driving people around the world, shipping stuff, making stuff and eating (meat)¹. ¹ Emphasizing meat because when talking about low-hanging fruit, that's where the biggest win is. By far.
segh 3y ago
Improve in intelligence and capability.
- bamboozled 3y ago
  to what end?
  - sandspar 3y ago
    To what end is any extraneous intelligence put to? Much of what we value most was created due to extraneous intelligence.

Vecr 3y ago

What people like Sam Altman claim the end goal is? ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) ~~takes over~~ optimizes the world, abolishing suffering and death forever. Well, hopefully it's not too nasty, living in someone else's dream and all.

bamboozled 3y ago
I don’t think he really believes that.
- Vecr 3y ago
  I mean, I don't think it's likely to happen. It was the old Yudkowsky/Bostrom line, but I don't know how many people believe it anymore.
- sandspar 3y ago
  Nobody knows whether to trust Sam Altman when he says something. That's one of his most salient personality features and widely remarked upon.
xyzzy123 3y ago
Isn't the world already kind of like that ("somebody else's dream"), just with "nobody at the wheel"? Like, technological society has "taken over" and there's no real way for humanity to opt out of it. We all have tiny bits of agency / freedom but for the most part our lives are bounded and constrained by the gigantic complex systems which support yet trap us.
corobo 3y ago
I'm sure he'll realise one day that to do that the super AI will have to get rid of money (after figuring out how to get us to post-scarcity, of course) - or at least demand it be redistributed fairly. Ain't no way the millionaires and billionaires of the world are going to accept being on equal footing with the poors, haha. Outside of the folks that fear Skynet, I imagine this is the real concern with alignment. How can a being of pure logic look past the hoarding of resources? If a monkey in captivity was hoarding all the food we'd step in and make sure the other monkeys had food to eat. I have to imagine the next intelligence above us would consider doing the same for us if given the power to do so. We'll never get to a point without an "Us vs Them", or "Have and Have Nots" - it's tragic, and I really hope I'm wrong, but I have infinite doubt on this one. Having said that I'll give anything a go, we're still stuck in the age of monarchies over here on Normal Island. AI wants to take over? I'm down to give it a shot as long as it promises to not wear a crown during a recession, haha

card_zero 3y ago

Unemployed copywriters roam the radioactive wasteland beyond the wall. They survive by eating one another. Inside the wall, the remnant of what was once civilization is in constant sectarian warfare between various cults, whose members believe in different deepfake videos, and with every passing year the truth about reality is buried a little deeper under generated media content. Nah, I'm center bottom, neither scared nor excited by it.

thuuuomas 3y ago

I agree with your concerns. To me, it seems like AI boosters subscribe to the ideology of Infinite Growth Forever & all their claims of “AI creating new types of employment that will provide for displaced workers” rest on that hollow rhetoric of prosperity gospel. Their optimism on behalf of the to-be-displaced is mere PR & not stopping them from privately wishing that the proles, who are Not Gonna Make It, Have Fun Staying Poor.

justanotherjoe 3y ago

The goal is to grow. Capitalism has growth imperative. It is the subtext behind everything. The moment growth stops, you dont stay the same, you die. So don't be mad if the 'next patch' sucks, we're in a train and there's no stopping it.

sandspar 3y ago
Life has a growth imperative. Frogs don't need capitalism to breed until they reach their environment's carrying capacity.
Sateeshm 3y ago
Snowpiercer

entropi 3y ago

>What I always wonder is what is the end-goal of the current AI movement? What's the point of it all? I also share this view. I would also argue that this is not even about the productivity. I mean, I don't think the currently automated parts were ever the bottlenecks in any good products. There are already more stuff being produced every year from a single publisher that is more than I can consume. And most of it is just shit. Think of Ubisoft games. They are already churning out a few new games every year, each of them chock full of beautiful assets in a very boring world, with an extremely repetitive shitty gameplay. And now with AI they can produce even more beautiful assets with even more shitty gameplay and even more boring worlds, I guess. Artists were already mostly a starving bunch (meaning the supply was already higher than the demand), good writers (and other auteurs) with strong vision were what was rare. And now, as humanity, we decided to divert some of the best engineering talent to automate the former? Why though, what is the point, really? I don't know when was the last time I really felt bored. I am sure I am not alone in that. What is the point of exponentially increasing the content production rate? I am really struggling to understand the appeal here.

sandspar 3y ago
I trust that people will come up with interesting uses for the new technology. > In the early 1940s, IBM's president, Thomas J Watson, reputedly said: "I think there is a world market for about five computers."
- entropi 3y ago
  That may or may not be a fair point; admittedly I can not see the future, but you could say the same for everything. Including things like "the solutions in search of a problem". What is for sure is that currently I cannot see how it is solving any real, painful problems.