3 ms·

even though I see the existential concerns with AI, I was at the table with a group of ISPs for the same governance conversations about the internet in the mid

even though I see the existential concerns with AI, I was at the table with a group of ISPs for the same governance conversations about the internet in the mid 90s and probably still have an RSA encryption munitions t-shirt in a box somewhere. what got bypassed was telco and ITU regulation, and the internet demolished the "converged" telco oligopoly system on content and publishing pretty naturally and in a fairly controlled way. given the impact of social media, could similar governance as is being advocated here have enabled the growth and whole new economies the way the platforms have? I don't see it. the people who ostensibly require your consent to serve you are the absolute last people you want to give control of powerful economic tools to, as first, what would they need your consent for if they have the tools, and since they don't actually make anything, by definition these people exist to optimize for solving zero-sum, closed loop problems in their own decision power and for redistribution to their coalitions. they do not -and will not- use AI to create the things that grow. charitably, governors and managers can be the shit from which things grow, but we are not in a shit shortage. imo, governance is the antithesis of desire. open source everything, build everything, release everything as fast as you can because these are the same old people who wanted cryptography backdoored, the internet content policed, speech punished, and now AI controlled. every generation must find a way to thrive in spite of them.

m463 2y ago
there must be a happy medium between daily tps reports and and a no-privacy gig economy. I think the answer is always checks and balances. And some things should be purposefully ambiguous, like "high crimes and misdemeanors".
- motohagiography 2y ago
  sort of interesting on the always part, as I don't think the failure mode of it is acceptable or desirable, where someone whose default is always to have checks/balances is ok with it because presumably they benefit. the alternative to checks and balances is the freedom to defect, exit, repurpose, optimize, compete, reinterpret, etc. we can always invent moderation schemes. even though I think the effect of unregulated social media has been existentially bad for western societies, most of the regulatory state seems pretty happy about the outcome. who could have predicted that all most people really wanted was to deliver food and do soft peepshow sex work while they raged about their outgroups and waited for their 15mins of fame? ugly and messy, but it's what we wanted. The one group you don't want to help are the ones who are actuated by having power over others. It's a sick kink, and the only thing that has kept them at bay so far has been the high bar of competence for math and code. AI changes that, and depriving good people of powerful tools by restricting them to the hands of regulators means only the worst people will have them. Open sourcing everything to take away any moats they may have seems more urgent than ever.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
> every generation must find a way to thrive in spite of them. Let's hope so. There is a value of having a critical perspective on developments, especially in tech if potential gets mixed up with blind advertising. But there has not been any constructive developments regarding internet technology in the last two decades on a policy level. We got security theatre and surveillance demanded by an old and scared population and you have to always be as vigilant against misdirected politics as you are on any attacks.

m463 2y ago

there must be a happy medium between daily tps reports and and a no-privacy gig economy. I think the answer is always checks and balances. And some things should be purposefully ambiguous, like "high crimes and misdemeanors".

motohagiography 2y ago
sort of interesting on the always part, as I don't think the failure mode of it is acceptable or desirable, where someone whose default is always to have checks/balances is ok with it because presumably they benefit. the alternative to checks and balances is the freedom to defect, exit, repurpose, optimize, compete, reinterpret, etc. we can always invent moderation schemes. even though I think the effect of unregulated social media has been existentially bad for western societies, most of the regulatory state seems pretty happy about the outcome. who could have predicted that all most people really wanted was to deliver food and do soft peepshow sex work while they raged about their outgroups and waited for their 15mins of fame? ugly and messy, but it's what we wanted. The one group you don't want to help are the ones who are actuated by having power over others. It's a sick kink, and the only thing that has kept them at bay so far has been the high bar of competence for math and code. AI changes that, and depriving good people of powerful tools by restricting them to the hands of regulators means only the worst people will have them. Open sourcing everything to take away any moats they may have seems more urgent than ever.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

> every generation must find a way to thrive in spite of them. Let's hope so. There is a value of having a critical perspective on developments, especially in tech if potential gets mixed up with blind advertising. But there has not been any constructive developments regarding internet technology in the last two decades on a policy level. We got security theatre and surveillance demanded by an old and scared population and you have to always be as vigilant against misdirected politics as you are on any attacks.