4 ms·

> AI doesn't have needs any desires, humans do. I fear that this won't age well. But to shamelessly riff on Marx, those who control the means of computation w

> AI doesn't have needs any desires, humans do. I fear that this won't age well. But to shamelessly riff on Marx, those who control the means of computation will control society.

visarga 2y ago
In the AI age, those who own the problems stand to own the AI benefits. Utility is in the application layer, not the hosting or development of AI models.
svara 2y ago
I agree the latter part is a risk to consider, but I really think getting an AI to replace human jobs on a vast scale will take much more than just training a bit more. You need to train on a fundamentally different task, which is to be good at the adversarial game of pursuing one's needs and desires in a social environment. And that doesn't yet take into account that the interface to our lives is largely physical, we need bodies. I'm seeing us on track to AGI in the sense of building a universal question answering machine, a system that will be able to answer any unambiguously stated question if given enough time and energy. Stating questions unambiguously gets pretty difficult fast even where it's possible, often it isn't even possible, and getting those answers is just a small part of being a successful human. PS: Needs and desires are totally orthogonal to AI/AGI. Every animal has them, but many animals don't have high intelligence. Needs and desires are a consequence of our evolutionary history, not our intelligence. AGI does not need to mean an artificial human. Whether to pursue or not pursue that research program is up to us, it's not inevitable.
- the_af 2y ago
  To be clear, I'm not arguing humans will stop being involved in software engineering completely. What I fear is that the pool of employable humans (as code reviewers, prompt engineers and high-level "solution architects") will shrink, because fewer will be needed, and that this will cause ripples in our industry and affect employment. We know this isn't far-fetched. We have strong evidence to suspect during the big layoffs of a couple of years ago, FAANG and startups all colluded to lower engineer salaries across the board, and that their excuse ("the economy is shrinking") was flimsy at best. Now AI presents them with another powerful tool to reduce salaries even more, with a side dish of reducing the size of the cost center that is programmers and engineers.
- boothby 2y ago
  Honestly, I wasn't even talking about jobs with that. I worry about an intelligent IOT controlled by authoritarian governments or corporate interests. Our phones have already turned society into a panopticon, and that will can get much worse when AGI lands. But yes, the job thing is concerning as well. AI won't scrub a toilet, but it will cheaply and inexhaustibly do every job that humans find meaningful today. It seems that we're heading inexorably towards dystopia.
  - svara 2y ago
    > AI won't scrub a toilet, but it will cheaply and inexhaustibly do every job that humans find meaningful today That's the part I really don't believe. I'm open to being wrong about this, the risk is probably large enough to warrant considering it even if the probability of this happening is low, but I do think it's quite low. We don't actually have to build artificial humans. It's very difficult and very far away. It's a research program that is related to but not identical to the research program leading to tools that have intelligence as a feature. We should be, and in fact we are, building tools. I'm convinced that the mental model many people here and elsewhere are applying is essentially "AGI = artificial human", simply because the human is the only kind of thing in the world that we know that appears to have general intelligence. But that mental model is flawed. We'll be putting intelligence in all sorts of places that are not similar to a human at all, without those devices competing with us at being human.
    - boothby 2y ago
      To be clear, I'm much more concerned about the rise of techo-authoritarianism than employment. And further ahead, where I said your original take might not age well; I'm also not worried about AI making humanoid bodies. I'd be worried about a future where mines, factories, and logistics are fully automated: an AI for whom we've constructed a body which is effectively the entire planet. And nobody needs to set out to build that. We just need to build tools. And then, one day, an AGI writes a virus and hacks the all-too-networked and all-too-insecure planet.
      - 2y ago

> AI doesn't have needs any desires, humans do. I fear that this won't age well. But to shamelessly riff on Marx, those who control the means of computation will control society.

visarga 2y ago

In the AI age, those who own the problems stand to own the AI benefits. Utility is in the application layer, not the hosting or development of AI models.

svara 2y ago

I agree the latter part is a risk to consider, but I really think getting an AI to replace human jobs on a vast scale will take much more than just training a bit more. You need to train on a fundamentally different task, which is to be good at the adversarial game of pursuing one's needs and desires in a social environment. And that doesn't yet take into account that the interface to our lives is largely physical, we need bodies. I'm seeing us on track to AGI in the sense of building a universal question answering machine, a system that will be able to answer any unambiguously stated question if given enough time and energy. Stating questions unambiguously gets pretty difficult fast even where it's possible, often it isn't even possible, and getting those answers is just a small part of being a successful human. PS: Needs and desires are totally orthogonal to AI/AGI. Every animal has them, but many animals don't have high intelligence. Needs and desires are a consequence of our evolutionary history, not our intelligence. AGI does not need to mean an artificial human. Whether to pursue or not pursue that research program is up to us, it's not inevitable.

the_af 2y ago
To be clear, I'm not arguing humans will stop being involved in software engineering completely. What I fear is that the pool of employable humans (as code reviewers, prompt engineers and high-level "solution architects") will shrink, because fewer will be needed, and that this will cause ripples in our industry and affect employment. We know this isn't far-fetched. We have strong evidence to suspect during the big layoffs of a couple of years ago, FAANG and startups all colluded to lower engineer salaries across the board, and that their excuse ("the economy is shrinking") was flimsy at best. Now AI presents them with another powerful tool to reduce salaries even more, with a side dish of reducing the size of the cost center that is programmers and engineers.
boothby 2y ago
Honestly, I wasn't even talking about jobs with that. I worry about an intelligent IOT controlled by authoritarian governments or corporate interests. Our phones have already turned society into a panopticon, and that will can get much worse when AGI lands. But yes, the job thing is concerning as well. AI won't scrub a toilet, but it will cheaply and inexhaustibly do every job that humans find meaningful today. It seems that we're heading inexorably towards dystopia.
- svara 2y ago
  > AI won't scrub a toilet, but it will cheaply and inexhaustibly do every job that humans find meaningful today That's the part I really don't believe. I'm open to being wrong about this, the risk is probably large enough to warrant considering it even if the probability of this happening is low, but I do think it's quite low. We don't actually have to build artificial humans. It's very difficult and very far away. It's a research program that is related to but not identical to the research program leading to tools that have intelligence as a feature. We should be, and in fact we are, building tools. I'm convinced that the mental model many people here and elsewhere are applying is essentially "AGI = artificial human", simply because the human is the only kind of thing in the world that we know that appears to have general intelligence. But that mental model is flawed. We'll be putting intelligence in all sorts of places that are not similar to a human at all, without those devices competing with us at being human.
  - boothby 2y ago
    To be clear, I'm much more concerned about the rise of techo-authoritarianism than employment. And further ahead, where I said your original take might not age well; I'm also not worried about AI making humanoid bodies. I'd be worried about a future where mines, factories, and logistics are fully automated: an AI for whom we've constructed a body which is effectively the entire planet. And nobody needs to set out to build that. We just need to build tools. And then, one day, an AGI writes a virus and hacks the all-too-networked and all-too-insecure planet.
    - 2y ago