3 ms·

The phony comforts of useful idiots

44 points by sksxihve 2y ago

protocolture 2y ago
[flagged]
gsf_emergency 2y ago
It seems then, debates about (oligarchy-owned) AI-safety are parallel to debates about the safety of cybernetically-planned economies.. (If any of you are interested, I think the abstract core of the issue is about the porous boundary between excludability & rivalry*) Since we're doing anti-Soviet puns: 1. From the top comment (imho comments are usually more thoughtful than essays :) This philosophy of lack of accountability, of detaching individuals from the consequences of their choices is to me the fundamental flaw at the heart of... well, I was going to say "Western democracy" but that's a dubious expression, so whatever it is we live under now. Is it not enough to tax corporate personhood (or *cough* AI-hood or *cough* useful parrot-cy or cough agen-cy) as a public resource, then?! [Luckily, search engines haven't become sentient.. yet] >Stafford Beers’ cybernetic perspective on corporate organization (Beers is the originator of “The purpose of a system is what it does") https://archive.today/latest/https://thetechbubble.substack.com/p/the-phony-comforts-of-useful-idiots/comments https://archive.today/latest/https://thetechbubble.substack.... 2. Also from top comment (Potemkin AI pdf alt link) https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5319/chapter/3800165/Planetary-Potemkin-AI-The-Humans-Hidden-inside https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5319/chapter/3... * https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/29598 https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/29598
trhway 2y ago
[flagged]
- sksxihve 2y ago
  This article isn't criticizing LLMs if that's the point of your comment seems like you missed the point of the article (or didn't actual read it). The TL;DR of it is the last paragraph that says > Anyone who is telling you criticism slots into “real” or “fake” or “sucks” or “dangerous” is at best a useful idiot desperate for a comforting narrative that’ll provide some phony comfort. If you’re interested in understanding the world, ignore such fools.
ringeryless 2y ago
"Skeptical of AI skeptics"... gimme a break, logic doesn't work like that. So called AI is the one with the burden to prove things. Skepticism is a natural position of repose. Nice try, though. I wonder when the shrill attempts at jamming LLMs down everyone's throat will realize that trying to act entitled to do so doesn't work either.
- dinfinity 2y ago
  I think the numbers pretty clearly show that individual consumers and companies are hungrily and eagerly gargling on LLMs. No jamming or shoving required.

44 points by sksxihve 2y ago

[flagged]

It seems then, debates about (oligarchy-owned) AI-safety are parallel to debates about the safety of cybernetically-planned economies.. (If any of you are interested, I think the abstract core of the issue is about the porous boundary between excludability & rivalry*) Since we're doing anti-Soviet puns: 1. From the top comment (imho comments are usually more thoughtful than essays :) This philosophy of lack of accountability, of detaching individuals from the consequences of their choices is to me the fundamental flaw at the heart of... well, I was going to say "Western democracy" but that's a dubious expression, so whatever it is we live under now. Is it not enough to tax corporate personhood (or *cough* AI-hood or *cough* useful parrot-cy or cough agen-cy) as a public resource, then?! [Luckily, search engines haven't become sentient.. yet] >Stafford Beers’ cybernetic perspective on corporate organization (Beers is the originator of “The purpose of a system is what it does") https://archive.today/latest/https://thetechbubble.substack.com/p/the-phony-comforts-of-useful-idiots/comments https://archive.today/latest/https://thetechbubble.substack.... 2. Also from top comment (Potemkin AI pdf alt link) https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5319/chapter/3800165/Planetary-Potemkin-AI-The-Humans-Hidden-inside https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5319/chapter/3... * https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/29598 https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/29598

trhway 2y ago

[flagged]

sksxihve 2y ago
This article isn't criticizing LLMs if that's the point of your comment seems like you missed the point of the article (or didn't actual read it). The TL;DR of it is the last paragraph that says > Anyone who is telling you criticism slots into “real” or “fake” or “sucks” or “dangerous” is at best a useful idiot desperate for a comforting narrative that’ll provide some phony comfort. If you’re interested in understanding the world, ignore such fools.

ringeryless 2y ago

"Skeptical of AI skeptics"... gimme a break, logic doesn't work like that. So called AI is the one with the burden to prove things. Skepticism is a natural position of repose. Nice try, though. I wonder when the shrill attempts at jamming LLMs down everyone's throat will realize that trying to act entitled to do so doesn't work either.

dinfinity 2y ago
I think the numbers pretty clearly show that individual consumers and companies are hungrily and eagerly gargling on LLMs. No jamming or shoving required.