4 ms·

How can you stop it? If company A refuses to build it on moral grounds, company B will. It is reshaping society in much the same way the industrial revolution

How can you stop it? If company A refuses to build it on moral grounds, company B will. It is reshaping society in much the same way the industrial revolution did. Luddites resisted change, for precisely the same reason people aren't happy about AI, and it's now a derogatory label. It's much better to adapt to a changing world but precisely what that entails is still up in the air.

arnold_palmur 3y ago
I'm tired of the comparisons of "the industrial revolution" and the "printing press", I don't see those as comparable to what's happening here. Although Devin isn't this, there's a reason people refer to AGI as our last invention.
camgunz 3y ago
The same way we pinched off a cottage industry of mustard gas manufacturers: you ban and tightly regulate it. Why does tech believe there should be no constraints whatsoever on what we build? Either our "change the world" pitches were completely inflated--what we do is meaningless dross--and we don't need to be regulated, or our mission statements were bang on and like any world-shaping thing we desperately need need to be regulated. You can't have it both ways.
- nerdawson 3y ago
  Should we regulate to prevent jobs from being replaced? Wouldn't that make us less competitive with countries that aren't willing to artificially cap that? I'm not against AI regulation on safety grounds but I'm not convinced it's a good idea to try to use regulation to preserve jobs. That feels like it would have much more damaging longer term consequences.
  - camgunz 3y ago
    > Should we regulate to prevent jobs from being replaced? Not at all what I'm saying. What should they have done? Not trained on code they weren't explicitly licensed to do so, and only given access to workers. The message of companies offering "productivity gains" (or outright replacement: "Hire Devin") to workers is "we're only interested in putting you out of work; how you pay your mortgage and get health care is your concern; call your congressperson". The fact that they're pushing hard to replace workers and flat out stating that their business models are illegal under current copyright law says everything about their offering: hey big business, if we put a carve out in copyright law your SWE headcount goes to zero; call your congressperson. Hence my original--earnest--question: do you all who are working on AI honestly think the government will fix this?
    - onel 3y ago
      The government is not this abstract concept, we choose (mostly) what happens there. If enough people complain, or are affected, changes will be made from a legal POV. If enough people lose jobs, yeah a government program might appear to help with that.
      - camgunz 3y ago
        If this were true Roe would still be the law of the land, we'd have meaningful gun control, a path to citizenship for undocumented workers, a stronger response to climate change, etc. etc. This stuff all has > 60% support, but there's practically no hope of it passing. Tells you everything you need to know.

arnold_palmur 3y ago

I'm tired of the comparisons of "the industrial revolution" and the "printing press", I don't see those as comparable to what's happening here. Although Devin isn't this, there's a reason people refer to AGI as our last invention.

camgunz 3y ago

The same way we pinched off a cottage industry of mustard gas manufacturers: you ban and tightly regulate it. Why does tech believe there should be no constraints whatsoever on what we build? Either our "change the world" pitches were completely inflated--what we do is meaningless dross--and we don't need to be regulated, or our mission statements were bang on and like any world-shaping thing we desperately need need to be regulated. You can't have it both ways.

nerdawson 3y ago
Should we regulate to prevent jobs from being replaced? Wouldn't that make us less competitive with countries that aren't willing to artificially cap that? I'm not against AI regulation on safety grounds but I'm not convinced it's a good idea to try to use regulation to preserve jobs. That feels like it would have much more damaging longer term consequences.
- camgunz 3y ago
  > Should we regulate to prevent jobs from being replaced? Not at all what I'm saying. What should they have done? Not trained on code they weren't explicitly licensed to do so, and only given access to workers. The message of companies offering "productivity gains" (or outright replacement: "Hire Devin") to workers is "we're only interested in putting you out of work; how you pay your mortgage and get health care is your concern; call your congressperson". The fact that they're pushing hard to replace workers and flat out stating that their business models are illegal under current copyright law says everything about their offering: hey big business, if we put a carve out in copyright law your SWE headcount goes to zero; call your congressperson. Hence my original--earnest--question: do you all who are working on AI honestly think the government will fix this?
  - onel 3y ago
    The government is not this abstract concept, we choose (mostly) what happens there. If enough people complain, or are affected, changes will be made from a legal POV. If enough people lose jobs, yeah a government program might appear to help with that.
    - camgunz 3y ago
      If this were true Roe would still be the law of the land, we'd have meaningful gun control, a path to citizenship for undocumented workers, a stronger response to climate change, etc. etc. This stuff all has > 60% support, but there's practically no hope of it passing. Tells you everything you need to know.