5 ms·

They do criticize the role of corporation and money in the development of AI power, but in a liberal statist way Rather than a revolutionary queer automated com

They do criticize the role of corporation and money in the development of AI power, but in a liberal statist way Rather than a revolutionary queer automated communist way, which is indeed disappointing. However I think the discussion is interesting when they also talk about forces like anti-humanist utopianism and the eugenic approach of some AI accelerationist. Keep in mind this is just an intro to the other papers in the issue, which you can find here: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/view/749 https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/view/749 The article on eugenics seems promising. It theorizes eugenics as a driver of the AGI frenzy, where eugenics spurns the production of AI/AGI that centralizes power and harms marginal communities. The article on excluding robot rights is aggravating because it excludes humans who either directly identify as robots or integrate deeply with assistive technologies, and their valid ethical and legal claims to rights and protections specific to their needs as robotic-humans. I do believe there are marginal people and communities that will require productions - the biggest example right now is that we need access to free and open source LLMs. AI dependent people currently depend on centralized AI models that compromise our privacy in return for providing necessary assistance with, for instance, emotional processing and communications needs.

mycologos 2y ago
> They do criticize the role of corporation and money in the development of AI power, but in a liberal statist way Rather than a revolutionary queer automated communist way, which is indeed disappointing. It's disappointing that their criticism doesn't conform to four disparate and specific adjectives seemingly plucked from thin air? What?
- barfbagginus 2y ago
  It's disappointing that their criticism does not call for the abolition of corporations and states, like my concept of automated communism does. Liberal statists assume that corporations and states could in theory be reformed to not centralize AI power in a way that hurts people. I think that corporations and states needs to be disbanded, because they'll centralize and abuse AI power no matter what.
golergka 2y ago
> is aggravating because it excludes humans who either directly identify as robots I honestly can't tell if this comment is a parody at this point.
- makeitshine 2y ago
  Satire has, in many cases, become indistinguishable from reality. In this case I'd wager its satire.
  - zeruch 2y ago
    Possibly. In most cases, the satire has become so arid, and reality such a cataclysmically stupid bit of incoherent lunacy, that "satire" is now just a corpse of bones that all the most bleak and nihilistic forms of humor sit upon like a throne...or clown-ass shitposters. It's impossible to tell anymore, and that makes me weirdly happy and angry at the same time.
    - barfbagginus 2y ago
      People who think that it is impossible to tell what is satire anymore simply lack communication skills and the empathy to connect with others and find out. I could tell you I'm being 100% serious. And rather than wondering how that might be, and asking me to explain, you'd still be wondering if I was pulling your leg. That is a skills issue. I'm being 100% genuine and truthful. I really think that's some people are joined so closely with their need for computers that we should give them specific protections and rights, to give them access to the systems they need to be happy and healthy. That is the only valid robot rights issue at the time. And keep in mind the people I'm arguing with think we should give AI their own legal rights, the way corporations have. That's what I'm arguing against. It only makes sense to give rights when genuine human suffering will happen otherwise.
      - bavell 2y ago
        I don't understand why people look at me funny when I tell them I'm a squid person. Must be a skills issue.
dullcrisp 2y ago
This comment is breaking my brain.
sandspar 2y ago
I say this with the kindest intentions but I think you may be at a risk of being recruited into a cult.
- barfbagginus 2y ago
  I'm actually the cult leader. We offer free air pods and chatgpt subscriptions to anyone who changes their identifier from "human" to "human-AI-hybrid". All you have to do is wear our t-shirt. /s And that, my friends, is what it looks like when I do a satire. I always add a /s signifier, because identifying satire is hard.
tbrownaw 2y ago
> The article on eugenics seems promising. It theorizes eugenics as a driver of the AGI frenzy, where eugenics spurns the production of AI/AGI that centralizes power and harms marginal communities. It tries to claim that (1) farming out data labeling to the lowest bidder, and (2) building things that put people out of work, are clearly caused by today's "I know how to make the world better" crowd being intellectually descended from yesteryear's "I know how to make the world better" crowd.
- barfbagginus 2y ago
  I haven't read the paper but the abstract seems to be making a more subtle argument. It argues that the drive towards AGI and safety is underpinned by an eugenic ideology that uses the contradiction between safety and generality as a ploy to centralize state and corporate power, to the detriment of anyone else. They point out that as long as AGI is thought of as undefinable and all powerful, AGI safety will fail. Their recommendation is reasonable: let's focus on automating specific tasks, where safety /can/ be defined. Any serious researcher would be doing this already. However the societal view of AGI is as an emerging god machine. And corporations are trying hard to make them into this. So the criticism is both valid and important. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13636 https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13636
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    From the abstract: As a result, many of the very same discriminatory attitudes that animated eugenicists in the past (e.g., racism, xenophobia, classism, ableism, and sexism) remain widespread within the movement to build AGI, resulting in systems that harm marginalized groups and centralize power, while using the language of “safety” and “benefiting humanity” to evade accountability. From the conclusion: We trace the influence of this set of ideologies throughout the AGI movement, and show the manner in which its harmful ideals have resulted in systems that perpetuate inequity, centralize power, and harm the same groups that were targeted by the first-wave modern eugenics movement. . So, what specifically is the "harm" caused? Well section 6.3 talks about paying people too little to label data: As Williams, et al. (2022) wrote, while corporations such as OpenAI headquartered in Silicon Valley receive billions of dollars in investment, with their executives and AI researchers paid six to seven figures, this salary is not afforded to the low-income essential workers around the world mitigating the harms of these systems at a cost to their own mental health. And about putting people out of work: By ascribing human-like qualities to models trained by corporations to generate profit, using troves of artists’ works without obtaining their consent or compensating them, our attention is directed away from investigating the processes by which corporations create these products, the harms their practices cause artists, and the mechanisms that need to be put in place to hold the corporations accountable. There's also the previous section (6.2) that I missed skimming it on my phone, where the energy demands are a "harm" because climate change. . It's claiming that these things are caused by the people behind AI work being eugenicists at heart (which they prove by recounting how "I can make the world a better place" thinking has changed over time, and asserting that older proposed mechanisms are current underlying ideals), and therefore not caring if they hurt people. . Their recommendation is reasonable: let's focus on automating specific tasks, where safety /can/ be defined. Their recommendation may be reasonable for reasons unrelated to the bulk of the article -- it's basically the precautionary principle, which in fictional settings with magic and summoned entities (which seems like a decent approximation of what trying to build a superhuman AI is) shows up as "do not call up what you cannot put down" -- but it doesn't really follow from the presented arguments and those arguments are holier that swiss cheese anyway.
CaptainFever 2y ago
Given that I identify as a robot, I agree with your last paragraph, especially the part about robot rights and open source models. However, as a liberal, I can't agree with the rest.
- barfbagginus 2y ago
  Greetings fellow robot human! I'm proud that you represent and fight for the rights of robotic humans!
  - CaptainFever 2y ago
    Greetings to you too fellow robot! Thank you. I apologise if my previous comment came across as too harsh. It is nice to meet you, even if I may disagree with you at times.

mycologos 2y ago

> They do criticize the role of corporation and money in the development of AI power, but in a liberal statist way Rather than a revolutionary queer automated communist way, which is indeed disappointing. It's disappointing that their criticism doesn't conform to four disparate and specific adjectives seemingly plucked from thin air? What?

barfbagginus 2y ago
It's disappointing that their criticism does not call for the abolition of corporations and states, like my concept of automated communism does. Liberal statists assume that corporations and states could in theory be reformed to not centralize AI power in a way that hurts people. I think that corporations and states needs to be disbanded, because they'll centralize and abuse AI power no matter what.

golergka 2y ago

> is aggravating because it excludes humans who either directly identify as robots I honestly can't tell if this comment is a parody at this point.

makeitshine 2y ago
Satire has, in many cases, become indistinguishable from reality. In this case I'd wager its satire.
- zeruch 2y ago
  Possibly. In most cases, the satire has become so arid, and reality such a cataclysmically stupid bit of incoherent lunacy, that "satire" is now just a corpse of bones that all the most bleak and nihilistic forms of humor sit upon like a throne...or clown-ass shitposters. It's impossible to tell anymore, and that makes me weirdly happy and angry at the same time.
  - barfbagginus 2y ago
    People who think that it is impossible to tell what is satire anymore simply lack communication skills and the empathy to connect with others and find out. I could tell you I'm being 100% serious. And rather than wondering how that might be, and asking me to explain, you'd still be wondering if I was pulling your leg. That is a skills issue. I'm being 100% genuine and truthful. I really think that's some people are joined so closely with their need for computers that we should give them specific protections and rights, to give them access to the systems they need to be happy and healthy. That is the only valid robot rights issue at the time. And keep in mind the people I'm arguing with think we should give AI their own legal rights, the way corporations have. That's what I'm arguing against. It only makes sense to give rights when genuine human suffering will happen otherwise.
    - bavell 2y ago
      I don't understand why people look at me funny when I tell them I'm a squid person. Must be a skills issue.

dullcrisp 2y ago

This comment is breaking my brain.

sandspar 2y ago

I say this with the kindest intentions but I think you may be at a risk of being recruited into a cult.

barfbagginus 2y ago
I'm actually the cult leader. We offer free air pods and chatgpt subscriptions to anyone who changes their identifier from "human" to "human-AI-hybrid". All you have to do is wear our t-shirt. /s And that, my friends, is what it looks like when I do a satire. I always add a /s signifier, because identifying satire is hard.

tbrownaw 2y ago

> The article on eugenics seems promising. It theorizes eugenics as a driver of the AGI frenzy, where eugenics spurns the production of AI/AGI that centralizes power and harms marginal communities. It tries to claim that (1) farming out data labeling to the lowest bidder, and (2) building things that put people out of work, are clearly caused by today's "I know how to make the world better" crowd being intellectually descended from yesteryear's "I know how to make the world better" crowd.

barfbagginus 2y ago
I haven't read the paper but the abstract seems to be making a more subtle argument. It argues that the drive towards AGI and safety is underpinned by an eugenic ideology that uses the contradiction between safety and generality as a ploy to centralize state and corporate power, to the detriment of anyone else. They point out that as long as AGI is thought of as undefinable and all powerful, AGI safety will fail. Their recommendation is reasonable: let's focus on automating specific tasks, where safety /can/ be defined. Any serious researcher would be doing this already. However the societal view of AGI is as an emerging god machine. And corporations are trying hard to make them into this. So the criticism is both valid and important. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13636 https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13636
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  From the abstract: As a result, many of the very same discriminatory attitudes that animated eugenicists in the past (e.g., racism, xenophobia, classism, ableism, and sexism) remain widespread within the movement to build AGI, resulting in systems that harm marginalized groups and centralize power, while using the language of “safety” and “benefiting humanity” to evade accountability. From the conclusion: We trace the influence of this set of ideologies throughout the AGI movement, and show the manner in which its harmful ideals have resulted in systems that perpetuate inequity, centralize power, and harm the same groups that were targeted by the first-wave modern eugenics movement. . So, what specifically is the "harm" caused? Well section 6.3 talks about paying people too little to label data: As Williams, et al. (2022) wrote, while corporations such as OpenAI headquartered in Silicon Valley receive billions of dollars in investment, with their executives and AI researchers paid six to seven figures, this salary is not afforded to the low-income essential workers around the world mitigating the harms of these systems at a cost to their own mental health. And about putting people out of work: By ascribing human-like qualities to models trained by corporations to generate profit, using troves of artists’ works without obtaining their consent or compensating them, our attention is directed away from investigating the processes by which corporations create these products, the harms their practices cause artists, and the mechanisms that need to be put in place to hold the corporations accountable. There's also the previous section (6.2) that I missed skimming it on my phone, where the energy demands are a "harm" because climate change. . It's claiming that these things are caused by the people behind AI work being eugenicists at heart (which they prove by recounting how "I can make the world a better place" thinking has changed over time, and asserting that older proposed mechanisms are current underlying ideals), and therefore not caring if they hurt people. . Their recommendation is reasonable: let's focus on automating specific tasks, where safety /can/ be defined. Their recommendation may be reasonable for reasons unrelated to the bulk of the article -- it's basically the precautionary principle, which in fictional settings with magic and summoned entities (which seems like a decent approximation of what trying to build a superhuman AI is) shows up as "do not call up what you cannot put down" -- but it doesn't really follow from the presented arguments and those arguments are holier that swiss cheese anyway.

CaptainFever 2y ago

Given that I identify as a robot, I agree with your last paragraph, especially the part about robot rights and open source models. However, as a liberal, I can't agree with the rest.

barfbagginus 2y ago
Greetings fellow robot human! I'm proud that you represent and fight for the rights of robotic humans!
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  Greetings to you too fellow robot! Thank you. I apologise if my previous comment came across as too harsh. It is nice to meet you, even if I may disagree with you at times.