4 ms·

The examples you cite — PCs, robots, locomotives, printing presses — each caused various clear harms. LLMs will do the same. Waving off these harms as lack of u

The examples you cite — PCs, robots, locomotives, printing presses — each caused various clear harms. LLMs will do the same. Waving off these harms as lack of understanding on someone else’s part doesn’t make them go away. Some of the things you haven’t listed — air conditioning, internal combustion engines, car-centric cities — are busy causing so much harm that our biosphere is showing the strain. Other things you haven’t listed — government-subsidized sugar production, sedentary lifestyles due to constant PC use — are busy causing so much harm to out bodies that humans are dying of simultaneous over-indulgence and despair. People warning about these harms were _right_, and in each case they were greeted by similar dismissiveness. No technology guarantees a rosy future. All of it has a cost, some of those costs are very heavy, and some are permanent.

brk 2y ago
I think you're mixing in too many technologies. I used the examples I did because they were all things that essentially directly offset or replaced human labor. Air conditioners did not replace humans in jobs, they made indoor spaces more habitable. The internal combustion engine alone did not directly replace people, we didn't really have at that point humans turning cranks all day, the IC engine was a component of bigger machines. Several of the other examples you mentioned definitely had negative impacts as well as positive ones, but they were never really seen as creating risk to peoples ability to earn money. If anything, they created new industries and jobs. AI will definitely offset some jobs that are menial or able to be done with low cognitive effort. But historically those kinds of things have always been overtaken by the progression of human invention. Elsewhere in this thread someone mentioned lamplighters as an example. "Jobs" are frequently replaced by progression. "Careers" less so (but not totally immune).
- sonofhans 2y ago
  I understand your point about labor replacement. Consider your POV, though: one person’s “menial” is another person’s stretch goal; one person’s “low cognitive effort” is another person’s maximum capacity. What of these people? As the efficiency of our means of production increases, so too does its ability to leave behind those who are not your so-called “productive people.” Now, we have more than enough wealth in this country to solve that problem to everyone’s benefit, and I’d like to think that we will. However, some of those most directly involved and invested in bringing on the AI-powered future are literally right now attempting to gut the social safety net for the same country. So, truthfully, I don’t believe a word of it. I think that an AI-powered future is just another ladder that the super-privileged want to climb and then pull up after themselves.

brk 2y ago

I think you're mixing in too many technologies. I used the examples I did because they were all things that essentially directly offset or replaced human labor. Air conditioners did not replace humans in jobs, they made indoor spaces more habitable. The internal combustion engine alone did not directly replace people, we didn't really have at that point humans turning cranks all day, the IC engine was a component of bigger machines. Several of the other examples you mentioned definitely had negative impacts as well as positive ones, but they were never really seen as creating risk to peoples ability to earn money. If anything, they created new industries and jobs. AI will definitely offset some jobs that are menial or able to be done with low cognitive effort. But historically those kinds of things have always been overtaken by the progression of human invention. Elsewhere in this thread someone mentioned lamplighters as an example. "Jobs" are frequently replaced by progression. "Careers" less so (but not totally immune).

sonofhans 2y ago
I understand your point about labor replacement. Consider your POV, though: one person’s “menial” is another person’s stretch goal; one person’s “low cognitive effort” is another person’s maximum capacity. What of these people? As the efficiency of our means of production increases, so too does its ability to leave behind those who are not your so-called “productive people.” Now, we have more than enough wealth in this country to solve that problem to everyone’s benefit, and I’d like to think that we will. However, some of those most directly involved and invested in bringing on the AI-powered future are literally right now attempting to gut the social safety net for the same country. So, truthfully, I don’t believe a word of it. I think that an AI-powered future is just another ladder that the super-privileged want to climb and then pull up after themselves.