5 ms·

Except of AIDS, none of the items on your list are things we really need but just a naive attempt of masking the problems of modern society life. Worse still:

Except of AIDS, none of the items on your list are things we really need but just a naive attempt of masking the problems of modern society life. Worse still: most of these problems were caused by the psychopaths who wanted nothing but money and power and found in the "techno-optimism" the perfect excuse to justify their actions.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> none of the items on your list are things we really need This can be said about practically any technology outside agriculture. It’s wild to pretend the items on that list don’t increase quality of life.
- rglullis 2y ago
  The problem is not of technology. The problem is that we are working to apply technology solutions with no regard to the scale and trade-offs involved. - Automation is good. Striving for "100% robotic warehouses" is a recipe to further concentrate wealth around the handful of corporations that can deploy it. - Electric engines are good. Thinking that we would be better off by giving one car to every adult person instead of simply redesigning the overall transit network is a horrible idea. - Finding new sources for rare earths is good. Jumping to the conclusion that this means we can then extract them is absurdly naive. We don't even recycle plastic properly, what do you think is going to happen with all those metals in the failing car batteries 20 years from now? - Improved drones are good. Arguing that progress is "getting VIPs out of congested areas" is absolutely dystopian. - Having drugs to treat diabetes is good. But having these drugs under the control of pharma corporations who worry more about their bottom line than actual health of the population is outright cruel. I am all for developing technology. I am not a Luddite. But we got to ask ourselves "cui buono?". Whenever we see somebody pushing some technology or project to solve "humanity problems", the immediate check should be "if this problem is so important to solve, would you still work on it even if you gained nothing from it?"
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > problem is that we are working to apply technology solutions with no regard to the scale and trade-offs involved This has been claimed for everything from writing to the printing press and steam engine. If you want perfectly deliberated technological development, you’re against new technology. > if this problem is so important to solve, would you still work on it even if you gained nothing from it? You’re describing research, not technology.
    - rglullis 2y ago
      > If you want perfectly deliberated technological development, you’re against new technology. This is absurd and the exact opposite of what I am saying. It's fine to work on new developments. It's not fine when people take their new developments and try to force them down everyone's throats. To illustrate, look at Sam Altman going to congress and having the petulance to argue that they can not make a business if OpenAI had to pay for copyrighted material. He is not arguing "we should work together with the copyright holders and give them ownership in the venture". He is not saying "developing this is crucial and can benefit everyone, so we hope we can make up for the copyright infringement by putting all our work in the public domain." He is just saying "I need this because without it I can not make money, and to make this I need money". It's self-serving circular logic. > You’re describing research, not technology. Which is exactly how VCs dress up their investments and justify how unethical their companies are.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > He is just saying "I need this because without it I can not make money, and to make this I need money". It's self-serving circular logic Sure. That is bad. That doesn’t make GPTs bad nor the good they do irrelevant. > Which is exactly how VCs dress up their investments and justify how unethical their companies are Sure, arguments can be used well or badly. The point remains that technology has to have utility to be technology. Otherwise it’s research or art (or fraud), the first two of which we pursue for their own purpose.
jessekv 2y ago
> Robotic manipulation in unstructured situations I expect this one to be a big one. Food production is not yet a solved problem. Imagine if robotics could scale "food forest"-style organic farming to the size of our current mono-crop farms.
- rglullis 2y ago
  For grains, fruits, vegetables? I am not so sure. Is manual labor the limiting factor to have more diverse cultures? It would be nice if we could get rid of factory farming though, but I doubt we are close to a point where we can have free range cattle being tended mostly by robots.
  - aDyslecticCrow 2y ago
    For fruits, manual labour is a large factor but not the only limiting factor. We Could see fragile fruits drop in price with good robotics, but not below other more mass-harvestable fruits such as oranges or nuts (that can be shaken from trees with tractors) Robotics within farming is often more about improving what is already being done in a more sustainable way. The primary benefit of monocropping is easier automation and larger machines. Cheap and good robots that can manually look after individual plants allow a more dynamic growth environment and more control over pesticide and weedkilling applications. But I think we are still a ways off before this starts to affect the market noticeably. Robots are still too slow and too expensive, or so I heard from asking a local strawberry producer who looked into what was commercially available.
    - rglullis 2y ago
      Another way to "solve" the problem for fragile fruits: stop trying to make them at scale. Let people them grow by themselves on their home gardens, or have community gardens/greenhouses that are jointly managed by a school/library...
      - jessekv 2y ago
        From experience, a moderately-sized back yard can certainly produce a year's supply of raspberries with very little tending :)
jillesvangurp 2y ago
Who is the royal "we" here? Are you claiming there is no market or that there shouldn't be one? Techno optimism and opportunism go hand in hand, of course. But I don't see anyone else inventing the future. To paraphrase Alan Kay.
- rglullis 2y ago
  The latter. There is always a market for everything, no matter how deranged it is.
Der_Einzige 2y ago
You deserve mass downvotes for implying that a cure for diabetes or obesity isn’t “needed”. Techno optimism will always refer to Star Trek (realistically the ds9 version), not whatever crap Anderson tried to make up with that term.
- rglullis 2y ago
  > a cure for diabetes or obesity isn't "needed" A pill that people need to take forever and whose formula is patented and can not be produced without bringing profits to any of the pharma labs that developed it is not a "cure".
SirYandi 2y ago
You're conflating type 1 and 2 (and more?) diabetes. A cure for type 1 diabetes is very much a thing millions of people really need
- rglullis 2y ago
  AFAIK, insulin therapy is already relatively cheap and does not incur risky side-effects. So, I'd say that a cure falls more in the "nice to have" than "absolutely need".

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> none of the items on your list are things we really need This can be said about practically any technology outside agriculture. It’s wild to pretend the items on that list don’t increase quality of life.

rglullis 2y ago
The problem is not of technology. The problem is that we are working to apply technology solutions with no regard to the scale and trade-offs involved. - Automation is good. Striving for "100% robotic warehouses" is a recipe to further concentrate wealth around the handful of corporations that can deploy it. - Electric engines are good. Thinking that we would be better off by giving one car to every adult person instead of simply redesigning the overall transit network is a horrible idea. - Finding new sources for rare earths is good. Jumping to the conclusion that this means we can then extract them is absurdly naive. We don't even recycle plastic properly, what do you think is going to happen with all those metals in the failing car batteries 20 years from now? - Improved drones are good. Arguing that progress is "getting VIPs out of congested areas" is absolutely dystopian. - Having drugs to treat diabetes is good. But having these drugs under the control of pharma corporations who worry more about their bottom line than actual health of the population is outright cruel. I am all for developing technology. I am not a Luddite. But we got to ask ourselves "cui buono?". Whenever we see somebody pushing some technology or project to solve "humanity problems", the immediate check should be "if this problem is so important to solve, would you still work on it even if you gained nothing from it?"
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > problem is that we are working to apply technology solutions with no regard to the scale and trade-offs involved This has been claimed for everything from writing to the printing press and steam engine. If you want perfectly deliberated technological development, you’re against new technology. > if this problem is so important to solve, would you still work on it even if you gained nothing from it? You’re describing research, not technology.
  - rglullis 2y ago
    > If you want perfectly deliberated technological development, you’re against new technology. This is absurd and the exact opposite of what I am saying. It's fine to work on new developments. It's not fine when people take their new developments and try to force them down everyone's throats. To illustrate, look at Sam Altman going to congress and having the petulance to argue that they can not make a business if OpenAI had to pay for copyrighted material. He is not arguing "we should work together with the copyright holders and give them ownership in the venture". He is not saying "developing this is crucial and can benefit everyone, so we hope we can make up for the copyright infringement by putting all our work in the public domain." He is just saying "I need this because without it I can not make money, and to make this I need money". It's self-serving circular logic. > You’re describing research, not technology. Which is exactly how VCs dress up their investments and justify how unethical their companies are.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > He is just saying "I need this because without it I can not make money, and to make this I need money". It's self-serving circular logic Sure. That is bad. That doesn’t make GPTs bad nor the good they do irrelevant. > Which is exactly how VCs dress up their investments and justify how unethical their companies are Sure, arguments can be used well or badly. The point remains that technology has to have utility to be technology. Otherwise it’s research or art (or fraud), the first two of which we pursue for their own purpose.

jessekv 2y ago

> Robotic manipulation in unstructured situations I expect this one to be a big one. Food production is not yet a solved problem. Imagine if robotics could scale "food forest"-style organic farming to the size of our current mono-crop farms.

rglullis 2y ago
For grains, fruits, vegetables? I am not so sure. Is manual labor the limiting factor to have more diverse cultures? It would be nice if we could get rid of factory farming though, but I doubt we are close to a point where we can have free range cattle being tended mostly by robots.
- aDyslecticCrow 2y ago
  For fruits, manual labour is a large factor but not the only limiting factor. We Could see fragile fruits drop in price with good robotics, but not below other more mass-harvestable fruits such as oranges or nuts (that can be shaken from trees with tractors) Robotics within farming is often more about improving what is already being done in a more sustainable way. The primary benefit of monocropping is easier automation and larger machines. Cheap and good robots that can manually look after individual plants allow a more dynamic growth environment and more control over pesticide and weedkilling applications. But I think we are still a ways off before this starts to affect the market noticeably. Robots are still too slow and too expensive, or so I heard from asking a local strawberry producer who looked into what was commercially available.
  - rglullis 2y ago
    Another way to "solve" the problem for fragile fruits: stop trying to make them at scale. Let people them grow by themselves on their home gardens, or have community gardens/greenhouses that are jointly managed by a school/library...
    - jessekv 2y ago
      From experience, a moderately-sized back yard can certainly produce a year's supply of raspberries with very little tending :)

jillesvangurp 2y ago

Who is the royal "we" here? Are you claiming there is no market or that there shouldn't be one? Techno optimism and opportunism go hand in hand, of course. But I don't see anyone else inventing the future. To paraphrase Alan Kay.

rglullis 2y ago
The latter. There is always a market for everything, no matter how deranged it is.

Der_Einzige 2y ago

You deserve mass downvotes for implying that a cure for diabetes or obesity isn’t “needed”. Techno optimism will always refer to Star Trek (realistically the ds9 version), not whatever crap Anderson tried to make up with that term.

rglullis 2y ago
> a cure for diabetes or obesity isn't "needed" A pill that people need to take forever and whose formula is patented and can not be produced without bringing profits to any of the pharma labs that developed it is not a "cure".

SirYandi 2y ago

You're conflating type 1 and 2 (and more?) diabetes. A cure for type 1 diabetes is very much a thing millions of people really need

rglullis 2y ago
AFAIK, insulin therapy is already relatively cheap and does not incur risky side-effects. So, I'd say that a cure falls more in the "nice to have" than "absolutely need".