3 ms·

> a defining characteristic of the Intelligence Age will be massive prosperity That's the sales pitch, that this will benefit all. I'm very pro-AI, but here's

by w10-1 2y ago

> a defining characteristic of the Intelligence Age will be massive prosperity That's the sales pitch, that this will benefit all. I'm very pro-AI, but here's the only prediction for the future I would ever make: AI will accelerate, not minimize, inequality and thus injustice, because it removes the organizational limits previously imposed by bureaucracy/coordination costs of humans. It's not AI's fault. It's not because people are evil or weak or mean, but because the system already does so, and the system has only been constrained by inability to scale people in organizations, which is now relieved by AI. Virtually all the advances in technology and civilization have been aimed at people capturing resources, people, and value, and recent advances have only accelerated that trend. Broader distributions of value are incidental. Yes, the U.S. had a middle class after the war, and yes, China has lifted rural people out of technical poverty. But those are the exceptions against the background of consolidation of wealth and power world wide. Not through ideology or avarice but through law and technology extending the reach of agency by amplifying transaction cost differences in market power, information asymmetry and risk burdens. The only thing that stops this is disasters like war and environmental collapse, and it's only slowed by recalcitrance of people. E.g., now we are at a point were people's economic and online activity is pervasively tracked, but it's impossible to determine who's the owner of the vast majority of assets. That creates massive scale for getting customers, but impedes legal responsibility. Nothing in economic/market theory says that's how it should be; but transaction cost economics does make clear that the asymmetry can and will be exploited, so organizations will capture governance to do so. It's not AI's job nor even AI's focus to correct injustice, and you can't blame AI for the damage it does. But like nuclear weapons, cluster munitions, party politics, (even software waivers of liability) etc., it creates moral hazards far beyond the ability of culture to accommodate. (Don't get me started on how blockchain's promise of smart contracts scaling to address transaction risks has devolved into proliferating fraud schemes.)

zero-sharp 2y ago
We've been quick to adopt the technology without identifying or considering its future costs. If a chatbot can generate code that works with minor tweaking, does that warrant laying off one or many programmers? If an AI tutor can provide most of the information a student needs, does that mean we no longer need human instructors? It's become common to shit talk teachers, but I think education is more than just "delivering facts." So the observation is this: in some very narrow areas, AI will be highly competitive while significantly cutting costs. What I worry about is all of the intangibles & unquantified tasks that people perform that will be lost if we go in the direction of replacing people in the name of profit. And I know that some people here will argue that this hasn't had effects on layoffs... So you mention how it's not the AI's fault, nor is it the fault of the people. But we have this corporate structure where it's easy to implement a change that may be detrimental in the future and that's difficult to reverse. I think that's definitely a fault of people.
munksbeer 2y ago
> AI will accelerate, not minimize, inequality and thus injustice Your argument here seems to rely on hand waving away a bunch of stuff through this statement: > Yes, the U.S. had a middle class after the war, and yes, China has lifted rural people out of technical poverty. But those are the exceptions against the background of consolidation of wealth and power world wide. What? You cannot truly believe that the average person has worse injustice or a worse life than the average person 1000 years ago. And for me, the entire crux of your argument depends on believing that. So it just falls down.
mr90210 2y ago
Please turn this comment into a post. It’s a gem.
kylehotchkiss 2y ago
This was very thoughtful. I agree with you, the benefits to the majority of the world from this tech is minimal. Universal childhood education is a fever dream. The amount money being poured into AI could probably increase actual human knowledge and critical thinking substantially had it be directed there instead. Not to say we shouldn't continue to invent AI! LLMs have been an interesting tool to use. But the ego behind the founders in this tech is so cringe. Get out of the bay, go travel to somewhere you need to actually get a visa for, and maybe tone down the proclamations a notch.
jprete 2y ago
I've come to similar/related conclusions, but I don't understand how you could recognize all of this and still be pro-AI.
- barrell 2y ago
  Not OP, but I also am in the same boat as him, and my logic is: 1. AI accelerating inequality does not mean that it won't have it's benefits 2. Being anti-AI will not stop it from happening. For better or for worse this train has left the station 3. I don't think that this will happen on the timescale that people talk about (not even sure if it will happen in our lifetimes). I don't mean it in the way I'll be dead so not my problem so much as that I think society will have a lot more time to adapt then the CEOs of the major AI labs like to claim. It's along the same lines of being a nuclear energy engineer, and thinking that nuclear bombs accelerate war and suffering. You can dream and plan and hope for a future with unlimited clean energy, but still realize the injustice brought about by nuclear weapons. You can have noble goals and do good with the tools at your disposal, and still recognize the harm that those tools have upon society. It can even be a source of motivation to leverage the tools to their fullest potential, to make their benefit worth all of the cost.
tim333 2y ago
I kind of disagree with how it will play out - I'm more optimistic. A couple of points: >Virtually all the advances in technology and civilization have been aimed at people capturing resources, people, and value... Not really so - people invent new stuff because it's cool. Maybe eg Geoffrey Hinton and neural networks. Then the business types try to jump in and capture resources - maybe Sam? But that's not really working with current AI - it all gets open sourced shortly after. Info tech seems to spread rather evenly. Even in Africa a lot of people have smartphones and can access Google and ChatGPT like we can. In the future people in democracies will be able to vote for universal income, free healthcare, free other stuff and the like. At the moment it doesn't fly to give everyone free stuff because someone has to do the work still - we don't quite have the AI robots yet. But when we do have it'll probably be the way to go.
- alt0_ 2y ago
  > it all gets open sourced shortly after Ah, of course. OpenAI, the company famous for open-sourcing it's developments. How could I forget?
j_timberlake 2y ago
Imagine a king ruled the entire world, and he didn't have any limits to his power. Would he treat everyone to eternal feasting? Or would he blow up his enemies and pick favorites among the remaining people? It's not hard to answer this question.

by w10-1 2y ago

zero-sharp 2y ago

We've been quick to adopt the technology without identifying or considering its future costs. If a chatbot can generate code that works with minor tweaking, does that warrant laying off one or many programmers? If an AI tutor can provide most of the information a student needs, does that mean we no longer need human instructors? It's become common to shit talk teachers, but I think education is more than just "delivering facts." So the observation is this: in some very narrow areas, AI will be highly competitive while significantly cutting costs. What I worry about is all of the intangibles & unquantified tasks that people perform that will be lost if we go in the direction of replacing people in the name of profit. And I know that some people here will argue that this hasn't had effects on layoffs... So you mention how it's not the AI's fault, nor is it the fault of the people. But we have this corporate structure where it's easy to implement a change that may be detrimental in the future and that's difficult to reverse. I think that's definitely a fault of people.

munksbeer 2y ago

> AI will accelerate, not minimize, inequality and thus injustice Your argument here seems to rely on hand waving away a bunch of stuff through this statement: > Yes, the U.S. had a middle class after the war, and yes, China has lifted rural people out of technical poverty. But those are the exceptions against the background of consolidation of wealth and power world wide. What? You cannot truly believe that the average person has worse injustice or a worse life than the average person 1000 years ago. And for me, the entire crux of your argument depends on believing that. So it just falls down.

mr90210 2y ago

Please turn this comment into a post. It’s a gem.

kylehotchkiss 2y ago

This was very thoughtful. I agree with you, the benefits to the majority of the world from this tech is minimal. Universal childhood education is a fever dream. The amount money being poured into AI could probably increase actual human knowledge and critical thinking substantially had it be directed there instead. Not to say we shouldn't continue to invent AI! LLMs have been an interesting tool to use. But the ego behind the founders in this tech is so cringe. Get out of the bay, go travel to somewhere you need to actually get a visa for, and maybe tone down the proclamations a notch.

jprete 2y ago

I've come to similar/related conclusions, but I don't understand how you could recognize all of this and still be pro-AI.

barrell 2y ago
Not OP, but I also am in the same boat as him, and my logic is: 1. AI accelerating inequality does not mean that it won't have it's benefits 2. Being anti-AI will not stop it from happening. For better or for worse this train has left the station 3. I don't think that this will happen on the timescale that people talk about (not even sure if it will happen in our lifetimes). I don't mean it in the way I'll be dead so not my problem so much as that I think society will have a lot more time to adapt then the CEOs of the major AI labs like to claim. It's along the same lines of being a nuclear energy engineer, and thinking that nuclear bombs accelerate war and suffering. You can dream and plan and hope for a future with unlimited clean energy, but still realize the injustice brought about by nuclear weapons. You can have noble goals and do good with the tools at your disposal, and still recognize the harm that those tools have upon society. It can even be a source of motivation to leverage the tools to their fullest potential, to make their benefit worth all of the cost.

tim333 2y ago

I kind of disagree with how it will play out - I'm more optimistic. A couple of points: >Virtually all the advances in technology and civilization have been aimed at people capturing resources, people, and value... Not really so - people invent new stuff because it's cool. Maybe eg Geoffrey Hinton and neural networks. Then the business types try to jump in and capture resources - maybe Sam? But that's not really working with current AI - it all gets open sourced shortly after. Info tech seems to spread rather evenly. Even in Africa a lot of people have smartphones and can access Google and ChatGPT like we can. In the future people in democracies will be able to vote for universal income, free healthcare, free other stuff and the like. At the moment it doesn't fly to give everyone free stuff because someone has to do the work still - we don't quite have the AI robots yet. But when we do have it'll probably be the way to go.

alt0_ 2y ago
> it all gets open sourced shortly after Ah, of course. OpenAI, the company famous for open-sourcing it's developments. How could I forget?

j_timberlake 2y ago

Imagine a king ruled the entire world, and he didn't have any limits to his power. Would he treat everyone to eternal feasting? Or would he blow up his enemies and pick favorites among the remaining people? It's not hard to answer this question.