5 ms·

AI Doesn't Threaten Humanity. Its Owners Do

96 points by laurex 2y ago

tootie 2y ago
I can't believe OpenAI employees threatened to mutiny so their CEO could exploit them for more personal wealth. Meanwhile Anthropic now has the highest-rated model.
eigenrick 2y ago
In other news, guns don't kill people. People do. etc etc.
- flawsofar 2y ago
  I dislike guns or arguments that because there are guns we need more guns. I expect we’re ideologically aligned on guns. Except you’re supporting the point. AI is more like the state with its army and high tech rifles than a predator with a pistol. AI will deeply centralize power if computing resources and data availability dominate.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    > AI will deeply centralize power if computing resources and data availability dominate. I'm sure the compute resources will remain centralized, but I'm growing increasingly doubtful of the current data landscape's ability to keep the data "clean" and not prone to Hapsburg AI scenarios or threat actors working to corrupt this data.
  - timeon 2y ago
    >> guns don't kill people. People do. > I dislike guns or arguments that because there are guns we need more guns. If people are ones doing the killing with guns, not guns in itself, it means that owners of guns are the ones responsible for killing. So it sounds like argument for regulating gun ownership. Like with driving license.
    - flawsofar 2y ago
      Guns make violence worse, so regulate them. The prime actor in violence is a person, and that person still has the capacity for violence without a gun. But let’s still prefer they don’t have one.
iamleppert 2y ago
This is the same semantic argument of "Guns don't hurt people". Of course, guns hurt people. A physical object can be harmful without a human being to give it intent. It's a straw man argument that delves into the meaning of words than actually addressing if something is actually harmful or not. I think we can all agree that AI is itself a tool, that can be used for good or bad. However, we can certainly make a judgement call on it, as a whole, by examining the current state of how it's being used, and by looking at what kinds of human behaviors it amplifies.
- Dig1t 2y ago
  Once you invent the gun you can't really stop them proliferating though, people with the means and determination will own them. Allowing one group of people to own them and not others is just asking for the group of owners to dominate and rule over the ones who do not own them.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    Yeah, in the last few years I realized somewhere along the way that I stopped believing in laws. It's a strange feeling and hard to think about how I used to feel in retrospect; it's like I used to believe there was some force that existed throughout the country that should control our behavior, but at some point I realized that there just isn't anything there. It's a bit like losing religion I suppose.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      Spirit or letter? Is it fair to assume you agree killing other human beings is still bad? Is there an alternative system you prefer?
      - silverquiet 2y ago
        Reading back my comment, I probably should have said I have lost faith in "the law". In this context, I mean the idea of gun control, but it's just generally a feeling that there really is no one in control of (American) society at this point. Without getting into a whole thing about the context of killing other human beings and how that matters, I'll just say I know what you mean and say yeah, it's bad to kill people. I'm not talking about personal morality; I live by one that many people would probably find overly restrictive (I certainly do).
foobarian 2y ago
It's the old Marxist means of production concept.
MBlume 2y ago
The article doesn't seem to make any attempt at all to defend the first half of its thesis.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Animats 2y ago
Good point, bad rant. Right now, the two real AI issues are 1) improved surveillance in a broad sense, and 2) job elimination. Both relate to what the owners of the tech want. The political problem is that few governments are willing to effectively regulate 1) or 2).
- daniel_reetz 2y ago
  Not only improved surveillance, but vastly increased surveillance, as everyone rushes to capture as much data as they possibly can for training.
- Lerc 2y ago
  Job elimination is not a new thing. People like to bring up textile workers because of how the term Luddite has come to refer to anti-technological sentiment, but the change in jobs has been fairly consistent. I presume that in a few years electric cars will result in significant job losses amongst those who produce internal combustion engines. Renewable energy will reduce the number of employed coal miners. I agree that this should be a role for government to assist people in a changing world.
  - TheGamerUncle 2y ago
    there is a quite clear well and obvious difference between job elimination and job transformation and job change. But the express purpose of creating textile machines was not job elimination, it was output increase, meanwhile AI is not at least in business cases presented as an output increaser. AI is presented and designed as an employee replacer, plain and simple.
    - janice1999 2y ago
      Textile machines were attractive to owners since they could employ less skilled people who could be replaced if they tried to organise and strike. This enabled the factory owners to take more of the profit and treat workers badly. It was the loss of high skilled jobs and the consolidation of wealth that drove the Luddite movement.
vouaobrasil 2y ago
> We shouldn’t fear AI as a technology. We should instead worry about who owns AI and how its owners wield AI to invade privacy and erode democracy. The entire problem with this article is that it is arguing against technological determinism without even knowing it, and so it has no argument against it. But with the seductive power of technology and the ability for it to provide short-term marginal advantages to people, and combined with the fact that humans are horribly poor at acting to stop long-term detriments and tragedy, it is far more likely that AI and advanced technology will spread even if we can see the death at the end of the tunnel. The only way we will gain more wisdom against advanced technology is to gain more wisdom without using advanced technology, because the immense power it offers is precisely the thing that makes it even harder to acquire that wisdom, simply because the power is too seductive. Sorry to say, but we cannot handle AI and that is abundantly clear: the short-term advantages are too great, even though it promises a horrendous future. Sort of like burning fossil fuels.
Lerc 2y ago
I watch a fair few Youtube Video Essays and one thing I notice is that there is quite a discontent with AI. Unfortunately there is a lot of preaching to the choir and not enough making a case. Nevertheless that discontent itself is a signal, and I think this article touches on why. People are quite disillusioned. There is growing wealth inequality, political division, Dark patterns (which should simply be called abusive software). We now have a generation that does not expect to ever own a home. You often hear the term now "Late Stage Capitalism" Which while admittedly was a clever term of speech when it was originated, has become a lazy expression of nihilism. It evokes the idea of capitalism as a cancer at a stage where the symptoms are obvious and debilitating, but also that it is at a point of no return and that it will kill itself and its host and there is nothing that can be done. I rarely hear a detailed complaint about the problems of AI without the phrase "Late Stage Capitalism" cropping up. The irony is, of course, that the devices, platforms, and information used to express these ideas were in a large part due to innovations that were enabled by a capitalist economy. I think without the anger and frustration of their current situation, many of those railing against capitalism would admit that what they would like is a well regulated socialist/capitalist system. Something that works for society but affords people the means to innovate. The problem for AI is that people fear that the empowering capabilities will go to the already powerful. As with wealth inequality, the expectation is that the power distribution of AI will also be unequal. There are numerous other complaints about various aspects of AI, but I feel like these are things that should be argued individually but are often too heavily influenced by the issues above.
laweijfmvo 2y ago
The "Owners" will use it to get rich[er], at any cost, and we'll only realize too late the damage it did. Government regulation could stop it, but politicians will only use their position to get rich[er] instead.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  The issue with "AI" and tech companies is they have incredible ability to influence, going against these companies might mean losing an election. It's a major conflict of interest when it comes to regulation of these "knowledge companies".
akira2501 2y ago
"Instead of enabling a world where we work less and live more, billionaires have designed a system to reward the few at the expense of the many. " They say this as if it is a novel outcome. To me, this idea that an AI can specially manipulate humanity into it's own destruction, only comes from the most cynical of people who are already in some form of business that relies on manipulation towards self destructive habits in order to generate profits. I think it's an incredibly myopic view that willfully ignores everyone outside of the small bubble of capital clutching psychopaths that they mistake for a representative sample of "humanity." I genuinely fail to appreciate this idea that AI, particularly as embodied through very expensive and poorly trained LLMs, is somehow "dangerous."
mistrial9 2y ago
some of the many links in that article https://apnews.com/article/google-chrome-privacy-lawsuit-settlement-203cc5063f1a1d4013de1900d9376814 https://apnews.com/article/google-chrome-privacy-lawsuit-set... https://apnews.com/article/private-incognito-browsing-explainer-google-chrome-f8b3dd9ae41c5d9da027454e5c0c92c6 https://apnews.com/article/private-incognito-browsing-explai... https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/09/07/facebook-telegram-and-ongoing-struggle-against-online-hate-speech-pub-90468 https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/09/07/facebook-telegram-a... https://epic.org/issues/consumer-privacy/data-brokers/ https://epic.org/issues/consumer-privacy/data-brokers/ https://lithub.com/surveillance-capitalism-and-the-internet-of-things/ https://lithub.com/surveillance-capitalism-and-the-internet-... https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/machine-learning-explained https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/machine-learni... https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/03/harvard-professor-says-surveillance-capitalism-is-undermining-democracy/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/03/harvard-profe... https://proton.me/blog/privacy-washing-2023 https://proton.me/blog/privacy-washing-2023 https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-surveillance-capitalism-and-how-does-it-shape-our-economy-119158 https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-surveillance-c... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-25/healthengine-sharing-patients-information-with-lawyers/9894114 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-25/healthengine-sharing-... https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/04/addressing-equity-ethics-artificial-intelligence https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/04/addressing-equity-ethics... https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-god-only-knows-what-its-doing-to-our-childrens-brains-1513306792 https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/sean-parker-unloads-on-face... https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/closing-data-broker-loophole https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/clos... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/period-tracker-apps-facebook-maya-mia-fem https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/period-tracker-... https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/a-majority-of-apps-are-about-to-come-clean-and-say-theyve-been-selling-your-data-all-along https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/a-majority-of... https://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Data-Matters/Data-is-not-neutral https://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Data-Matters/Data-is-not... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17216783/1096/brown-v-google-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17216783/1096/brown-v-g... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2018/01/electronic-toy-maker-vtech-settles-ftc-allegations-it-violated-childrens-privacy-law-ftc-act https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2018/01/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-says-ring-employees-illegally-surveilled-customers-failed-stop-hackers-taking-control-users https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/... https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/private-browsing-incognito-mode-what-to-know/3819842/ https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/... https://www.propublica.org/article/you-snooze-you-lose-insurers-make-the-old-adage-literally-true https://www.propublica.org/article/you-snooze-you-lose-insur... https://www.reuters.com/technology/biden-crack-down-us-data-flows-china-russia-2024-02-28/#:~:text=%22China%20and%20Russia%20are%20buying,told%20reporters%20on%20Tuesday%20evening https://www.reuters.com/technology/biden-crack-down-us-data-.... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-teach-computers-think-for-themselves/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-teach-comp... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overload-helps-fake-news-spread-and-social-media-knows-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overl... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robot-be-good/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robot-be-good/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/what-is-machine-learning-and-how-does-it-work-heres-a-short-video-primer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/what-is-machine-lea... https://www.stitchdata.com/resources/predictive-analytics/ https://www.stitchdata.com/resources/predictive-analytics/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/05/1089449/nobody-knows-how-ai-works/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/05/1089449/nobody-k... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-papers-democracy-election-zuckerberg/620478/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-p... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-dangerous-experiment-teen-girls/620767/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/04/shoshana-zuboff-surveillance-capitalism-assault-human-automomy-digital-privacy https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/04/shoshana-zubof... https://www.vox.com/2018/2/27/17053758/phone-addictive-design-google-apple https://www.vox.com/2018/2/27/17053758/phone-addictive-desig...
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
This feels only vaguely less affronting than "guns don't kill people, bullets do". AI is, for the foreseeable, the work of extremely vast troves of resources. Countless of the most expensive chips on the planet, the best interconnects, the highest paid expert teams. Whatever the output is, these inputs are the firing mechanism that creates & keeps the AI firing.
ldehaan 2y ago
[dead]

96 points by laurex 2y ago

I can't believe OpenAI employees threatened to mutiny so their CEO could exploit them for more personal wealth. Meanwhile Anthropic now has the highest-rated model.

eigenrick 2y ago

In other news, guns don't kill people. People do. etc etc.

flawsofar 2y ago
I dislike guns or arguments that because there are guns we need more guns. I expect we’re ideologically aligned on guns. Except you’re supporting the point. AI is more like the state with its army and high tech rifles than a predator with a pistol. AI will deeply centralize power if computing resources and data availability dominate.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  > AI will deeply centralize power if computing resources and data availability dominate. I'm sure the compute resources will remain centralized, but I'm growing increasingly doubtful of the current data landscape's ability to keep the data "clean" and not prone to Hapsburg AI scenarios or threat actors working to corrupt this data.
- timeon 2y ago
  >> guns don't kill people. People do. > I dislike guns or arguments that because there are guns we need more guns. If people are ones doing the killing with guns, not guns in itself, it means that owners of guns are the ones responsible for killing. So it sounds like argument for regulating gun ownership. Like with driving license.
  - flawsofar 2y ago
    Guns make violence worse, so regulate them. The prime actor in violence is a person, and that person still has the capacity for violence without a gun. But let’s still prefer they don’t have one.

iamleppert 2y ago

This is the same semantic argument of "Guns don't hurt people". Of course, guns hurt people. A physical object can be harmful without a human being to give it intent. It's a straw man argument that delves into the meaning of words than actually addressing if something is actually harmful or not. I think we can all agree that AI is itself a tool, that can be used for good or bad. However, we can certainly make a judgement call on it, as a whole, by examining the current state of how it's being used, and by looking at what kinds of human behaviors it amplifies.

Dig1t 2y ago
Once you invent the gun you can't really stop them proliferating though, people with the means and determination will own them. Allowing one group of people to own them and not others is just asking for the group of owners to dominate and rule over the ones who do not own them.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  Yeah, in the last few years I realized somewhere along the way that I stopped believing in laws. It's a strange feeling and hard to think about how I used to feel in retrospect; it's like I used to believe there was some force that existed throughout the country that should control our behavior, but at some point I realized that there just isn't anything there. It's a bit like losing religion I suppose.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    Spirit or letter? Is it fair to assume you agree killing other human beings is still bad? Is there an alternative system you prefer?
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      Reading back my comment, I probably should have said I have lost faith in "the law". In this context, I mean the idea of gun control, but it's just generally a feeling that there really is no one in control of (American) society at this point. Without getting into a whole thing about the context of killing other human beings and how that matters, I'll just say I know what you mean and say yeah, it's bad to kill people. I'm not talking about personal morality; I live by one that many people would probably find overly restrictive (I certainly do).

foobarian 2y ago

It's the old Marxist means of production concept.

MBlume 2y ago

The article doesn't seem to make any attempt at all to defend the first half of its thesis.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Animats 2y ago

Good point, bad rant. Right now, the two real AI issues are 1) improved surveillance in a broad sense, and 2) job elimination. Both relate to what the owners of the tech want. The political problem is that few governments are willing to effectively regulate 1) or 2).

daniel_reetz 2y ago
Not only improved surveillance, but vastly increased surveillance, as everyone rushes to capture as much data as they possibly can for training.
Lerc 2y ago
Job elimination is not a new thing. People like to bring up textile workers because of how the term Luddite has come to refer to anti-technological sentiment, but the change in jobs has been fairly consistent. I presume that in a few years electric cars will result in significant job losses amongst those who produce internal combustion engines. Renewable energy will reduce the number of employed coal miners. I agree that this should be a role for government to assist people in a changing world.
- TheGamerUncle 2y ago
  there is a quite clear well and obvious difference between job elimination and job transformation and job change. But the express purpose of creating textile machines was not job elimination, it was output increase, meanwhile AI is not at least in business cases presented as an output increaser. AI is presented and designed as an employee replacer, plain and simple.
  - janice1999 2y ago
    Textile machines were attractive to owners since they could employ less skilled people who could be replaced if they tried to organise and strike. This enabled the factory owners to take more of the profit and treat workers badly. It was the loss of high skilled jobs and the consolidation of wealth that drove the Luddite movement.

vouaobrasil 2y ago

> We shouldn’t fear AI as a technology. We should instead worry about who owns AI and how its owners wield AI to invade privacy and erode democracy. The entire problem with this article is that it is arguing against technological determinism without even knowing it, and so it has no argument against it. But with the seductive power of technology and the ability for it to provide short-term marginal advantages to people, and combined with the fact that humans are horribly poor at acting to stop long-term detriments and tragedy, it is far more likely that AI and advanced technology will spread even if we can see the death at the end of the tunnel. The only way we will gain more wisdom against advanced technology is to gain more wisdom without using advanced technology, because the immense power it offers is precisely the thing that makes it even harder to acquire that wisdom, simply because the power is too seductive. Sorry to say, but we cannot handle AI and that is abundantly clear: the short-term advantages are too great, even though it promises a horrendous future. Sort of like burning fossil fuels.

Lerc 2y ago

I watch a fair few Youtube Video Essays and one thing I notice is that there is quite a discontent with AI. Unfortunately there is a lot of preaching to the choir and not enough making a case. Nevertheless that discontent itself is a signal, and I think this article touches on why. People are quite disillusioned. There is growing wealth inequality, political division, Dark patterns (which should simply be called abusive software). We now have a generation that does not expect to ever own a home. You often hear the term now "Late Stage Capitalism" Which while admittedly was a clever term of speech when it was originated, has become a lazy expression of nihilism. It evokes the idea of capitalism as a cancer at a stage where the symptoms are obvious and debilitating, but also that it is at a point of no return and that it will kill itself and its host and there is nothing that can be done. I rarely hear a detailed complaint about the problems of AI without the phrase "Late Stage Capitalism" cropping up. The irony is, of course, that the devices, platforms, and information used to express these ideas were in a large part due to innovations that were enabled by a capitalist economy. I think without the anger and frustration of their current situation, many of those railing against capitalism would admit that what they would like is a well regulated socialist/capitalist system. Something that works for society but affords people the means to innovate. The problem for AI is that people fear that the empowering capabilities will go to the already powerful. As with wealth inequality, the expectation is that the power distribution of AI will also be unequal. There are numerous other complaints about various aspects of AI, but I feel like these are things that should be argued individually but are often too heavily influenced by the issues above.

laweijfmvo 2y ago

The "Owners" will use it to get rich[er], at any cost, and we'll only realize too late the damage it did. Government regulation could stop it, but politicians will only use their position to get rich[er] instead.

bamboozled 2y ago
The issue with "AI" and tech companies is they have incredible ability to influence, going against these companies might mean losing an election. It's a major conflict of interest when it comes to regulation of these "knowledge companies".

akira2501 2y ago

"Instead of enabling a world where we work less and live more, billionaires have designed a system to reward the few at the expense of the many. " They say this as if it is a novel outcome. To me, this idea that an AI can specially manipulate humanity into it's own destruction, only comes from the most cynical of people who are already in some form of business that relies on manipulation towards self destructive habits in order to generate profits. I think it's an incredibly myopic view that willfully ignores everyone outside of the small bubble of capital clutching psychopaths that they mistake for a representative sample of "humanity." I genuinely fail to appreciate this idea that AI, particularly as embodied through very expensive and poorly trained LLMs, is somehow "dangerous."

mistrial9 2y ago

some of the many links in that article https://apnews.com/article/google-chrome-privacy-lawsuit-settlement-203cc5063f1a1d4013de1900d9376814 https://apnews.com/article/google-chrome-privacy-lawsuit-set... https://apnews.com/article/private-incognito-browsing-explainer-google-chrome-f8b3dd9ae41c5d9da027454e5c0c92c6 https://apnews.com/article/private-incognito-browsing-explai... https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/09/07/facebook-telegram-and-ongoing-struggle-against-online-hate-speech-pub-90468 https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/09/07/facebook-telegram-a... https://epic.org/issues/consumer-privacy/data-brokers/ https://epic.org/issues/consumer-privacy/data-brokers/ https://lithub.com/surveillance-capitalism-and-the-internet-of-things/ https://lithub.com/surveillance-capitalism-and-the-internet-... https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/machine-learning-explained https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/machine-learni... https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/03/harvard-professor-says-surveillance-capitalism-is-undermining-democracy/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/03/harvard-profe... https://proton.me/blog/privacy-washing-2023 https://proton.me/blog/privacy-washing-2023 https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-surveillance-capitalism-and-how-does-it-shape-our-economy-119158 https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-surveillance-c... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-25/healthengine-sharing-patients-information-with-lawyers/9894114 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-25/healthengine-sharing-... https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/04/addressing-equity-ethics-artificial-intelligence https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/04/addressing-equity-ethics... https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-god-only-knows-what-its-doing-to-our-childrens-brains-1513306792 https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/sean-parker-unloads-on-face... https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/closing-data-broker-loophole https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/clos... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/period-tracker-apps-facebook-maya-mia-fem https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/period-tracker-... https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/a-majority-of-apps-are-about-to-come-clean-and-say-theyve-been-selling-your-data-all-along https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/a-majority-of... https://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Data-Matters/Data-is-not-neutral https://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Data-Matters/Data-is-not... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17216783/1096/brown-v-google-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17216783/1096/brown-v-g... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2018/01/electronic-toy-maker-vtech-settles-ftc-allegations-it-violated-childrens-privacy-law-ftc-act https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2018/01/... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-says-ring-employees-illegally-surveilled-customers-failed-stop-hackers-taking-control-users https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/... https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/private-browsing-incognito-mode-what-to-know/3819842/ https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/... https://www.propublica.org/article/you-snooze-you-lose-insurers-make-the-old-adage-literally-true https://www.propublica.org/article/you-snooze-you-lose-insur... https://www.reuters.com/technology/biden-crack-down-us-data-flows-china-russia-2024-02-28/#:~:text=%22China%20and%20Russia%20are%20buying,told%20reporters%20on%20Tuesday%20evening https://www.reuters.com/technology/biden-crack-down-us-data-.... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-teach-computers-think-for-themselves/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-teach-comp... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overload-helps-fake-news-spread-and-social-media-knows-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overl... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robot-be-good/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robot-be-good/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/what-is-machine-learning-and-how-does-it-work-heres-a-short-video-primer/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/what-is-machine-lea... https://www.stitchdata.com/resources/predictive-analytics/ https://www.stitchdata.com/resources/predictive-analytics/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/05/1089449/nobody-knows-how-ai-works/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/05/1089449/nobody-k... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-papers-democracy-election-zuckerberg/620478/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-p... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-dangerous-experiment-teen-girls/620767/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/04/shoshana-zuboff-surveillance-capitalism-assault-human-automomy-digital-privacy https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/04/shoshana-zubof... https://www.vox.com/2018/2/27/17053758/phone-addictive-design-google-apple https://www.vox.com/2018/2/27/17053758/phone-addictive-desig...

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

This feels only vaguely less affronting than "guns don't kill people, bullets do". AI is, for the foreseeable, the work of extremely vast troves of resources. Countless of the most expensive chips on the planet, the best interconnects, the highest paid expert teams. Whatever the output is, these inputs are the firing mechanism that creates & keeps the AI firing.

ldehaan 2y ago

[dead]