3 ms·

Wholeheartedly agree. I can't help but think that proponents of LLMs are not seriously considering the impact it will have on our ability to communicate with ea

Wholeheartedly agree. I can't help but think that proponents of LLMs are not seriously considering the impact it will have on our ability to communicate with each other, or to reason on our own accord without the assistance of an LLM. It confounds me how these people would trust the same companies who fueled the decay of social discourse via the internet with the creation of AI models which aim to encroach on every aspect of our lives.

soulofmischief 1y ago
Some of us realize this technology was inevitable and are more focused on figuring out how society evolves from here instead of complaining and trying to legislate away math and prevent honest people from using these tools while criminals freely make use of them.
- jplusequalt 1y ago
  >Some of us realize this technology was inevitable How was any of this inevitable? Point me to which law of physics demanded we reach this state of the universe. These companies actively choose to train these models, and by framing their development as "inevitable" you are helping absolve them of any of the negative shit they have/will cause. >figuring out how society evolves from here instead of complaining and trying to legislate away math Could you not apply this exact logic to the creation of nuclear weaponry--perhaps the greatest example of tragedy of the commons? >prevent honest people from using these tools while criminals freely make use of them What is your argument here? Should we suggest that everyone learn how to money launder to even the playing field against criminals?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - soulofmischief 1y ago
    > Point me to which law of physics demanded we reach this state of the universe Gestures vaguely around at everything Intelligence is intelligence, and we are beginning to really get down to the fundamentals of self-organization and how order naturally emerges from chaos. > Could you not apply this exact logic to the creation of nuclear weaponry--perhaps the greatest example of tragedy of the commons? Yes, I can. Access to information is one thing (must be carefully handled, but information wants to be free, and there should be no law determining what one person can say to another, barring NDAs and government classification of national secrets (which doesn't include math and physics) but we absolutely have international treaties to limit nuclear proliferation, and we also have countries who do not participate in these treaties, or violate them, which illustrates my point that criminals will do whatever they want. > Should we suggest that everyone learn how to money launder to even the playing field against criminals? I have no interest in entertaining your straw mans. You're intelligent enough to understand context.
  - MarkusQ 1y ago
    > Should we suggest that everyone learn how to money launder to even the playing field against criminals? Certainly. We should also teach them how phishing scams work, and about confirmation bias, high pressure sales tactics, phantom limbs, vote splitting, inflation, optical illusions, demagoguery, peer pressure, lotteries, both insurance and insurance fraud, and lots of other things work.
- collingreen 1y ago
  If only there were more nuances and options between those two extremes! Oh well, back to the anti math legislation pits I guess.
  - soulofmischief 1y ago
    There are many nuances to this argument, but I am not trying to write a novel in a hacker news comment. Certain broad strokes absolutely apply, and when you get down to brass tacks it's about respecting personal freedom.
- dowager_dan99 1y ago
  This is a really negative and insulting comment towards people who are struggling with a very real, very emotional response to AI, and super-concerned about both the real and potential negatives that the rabid boosters won't even acknowledge. You don't have to "play the game" to make an impact, it's valid to try and challenge the math and change the rules too.
  - soulofmischief 1y ago
    > This is a really negative and insulting comment towards people who are struggling with a very real, very emotional response to AI I disagree that my comment was negative at all. Many of those same people (not all) spend a lot of time making negative comments towards my work in AI, and tossing around authoritarian ideas of restriction in domains they understand like art and literature, while failing to also properly engage with the real issues such as intelligent mass surveillance and increased access to harmful information. They would sooner take these new freedom weapons out of the hands of the people while companies like Palintir and NSO Group continue to use them at scale. > super-concerned about both the real and potential negatives that the rabid boosters won't even acknowledge So am I, the difference is I am having a rational and not an emotional response, and I have spent a lot of time deeply understanding machine learning for the last decade in order to be able to have a measured, informed response. > You don't have to "play the game" to make an impact, it's valid to try and challenge the math and change the rules too I firmly believe you cannot ethically outlaw math, and this is part of why I have trouble empathizing with those who feel otherwise. People are so quick to support authoritarian power structures the moment it supposedly benefits them or their world view. Meanwhile, the informed are doing what they can to prevent this stuff from being used to surveil and classify humanity, and to find a balance that allows humans to coexist with artificial intelligence. We are not falling prey to reactionary politics and disinformation, and we are not willing to needlessly expand government overreach and legislate away critical individual freedom in order to achieve our goals.
    - spencerflem 1y ago
      its not outlawing math, its outlawing what companies can sell as a product. that's like saying that you can't outlaw selling bombs in a store because its "chemistry". Or even for usage- can we not outlaw shooting someone with a gun because it is "projectile physics"? Im glad you do oppose Palantir - we're on the same side and I support what you're doing! - but I also think you're leaving the most effective solution on the table by ignoring regulatory options.
- bgwalter 1y ago
  DDT was a very successful insecticide that was outlawed due to its adverse effects on humans.
  - absurdo 1y ago
    It didn’t have a trillion dollar marketing campaign behind it.
  - soulofmischief 1y ago
    I shouldn't have to tell you that producing, distributing and using a toxic chemical that negatively affects the earth and its biosphere are much, much different than allowing people to train and use models for personal use. This is a massive strawman and doesn't even deserve as much engagement as I've given it here.
- harimau777 1y ago
  Have they come up with anything? So far I haven't seen any solutions presented that are both politically viable and don't result in people being even more under the thumb of late stage capitalism.
  - soulofmischief 1y ago
    This is one of the most complicated issues humanity has ever dealt with. Don't hold your breath, it's gonna be a while. Society at large doesn't even have a healthy relationship with the internet and mobile phones, these advancements in artificial intelligence came at both a good and awful time.
Workaccount2 1y ago
For me it threatens to be like a spell check. Back 20 years ago when I was still in school and still hand writing for many assignments, my spelling was very good. Nowadays it's been a long time since my brain totally checked out on spelling. Everything I write in every case has spell check, so why waste neurons on spelling? I fear the same will happen on a much broader level with AI.
- kiitos 1y ago
  What? Who is spending any brain cycles on spelling? When you write a word, you just write the word, the spelling is... intrinsic? automatic? certainly not something that you have to, like, actively think about?
  - username223 1y ago
    ... until spellcheck gets "AI," and starts turning correctly-spelled words into different words that it thinks are more likely. (Don't get me started on "its" vs. "it's," which autocorrect frequently randomly incorrects.)
  - steveklabnik 1y ago
    I both agree and disagree, I don't regularly think about spelling, but there are certain words I know my brain always gets wrong, so when I run into one of those, things come crashing to a halt for a second while I try to remember if I'm still spelling them wrong or if I've finally trained myself to do it correctly.
  - code_biologist 1y ago
    I experience the same but I've always been an extremely strong speller. I think it's a biased viewpoint. I remember the kids in grade school who really struggled, and I've always wondered how that same group fares these days with autocorrect: if they pick up the correct spelling through repeat exposure or the opposite is true and they end up relying on autocorrect. I don't know of any of the research, but I suspect that teaching reading via "sight reading" over phonics is heavily detrimental to developing an intrinsic automatic sense of spelling.

soulofmischief 1y ago

Some of us realize this technology was inevitable and are more focused on figuring out how society evolves from here instead of complaining and trying to legislate away math and prevent honest people from using these tools while criminals freely make use of them.

jplusequalt 1y ago
>Some of us realize this technology was inevitable How was any of this inevitable? Point me to which law of physics demanded we reach this state of the universe. These companies actively choose to train these models, and by framing their development as "inevitable" you are helping absolve them of any of the negative shit they have/will cause. >figuring out how society evolves from here instead of complaining and trying to legislate away math Could you not apply this exact logic to the creation of nuclear weaponry--perhaps the greatest example of tragedy of the commons? >prevent honest people from using these tools while criminals freely make use of them What is your argument here? Should we suggest that everyone learn how to money launder to even the playing field against criminals?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  > Point me to which law of physics demanded we reach this state of the universe Gestures vaguely around at everything Intelligence is intelligence, and we are beginning to really get down to the fundamentals of self-organization and how order naturally emerges from chaos. > Could you not apply this exact logic to the creation of nuclear weaponry--perhaps the greatest example of tragedy of the commons? Yes, I can. Access to information is one thing (must be carefully handled, but information wants to be free, and there should be no law determining what one person can say to another, barring NDAs and government classification of national secrets (which doesn't include math and physics) but we absolutely have international treaties to limit nuclear proliferation, and we also have countries who do not participate in these treaties, or violate them, which illustrates my point that criminals will do whatever they want. > Should we suggest that everyone learn how to money launder to even the playing field against criminals? I have no interest in entertaining your straw mans. You're intelligent enough to understand context.
- MarkusQ 1y ago
  > Should we suggest that everyone learn how to money launder to even the playing field against criminals? Certainly. We should also teach them how phishing scams work, and about confirmation bias, high pressure sales tactics, phantom limbs, vote splitting, inflation, optical illusions, demagoguery, peer pressure, lotteries, both insurance and insurance fraud, and lots of other things work.
collingreen 1y ago
If only there were more nuances and options between those two extremes! Oh well, back to the anti math legislation pits I guess.
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  There are many nuances to this argument, but I am not trying to write a novel in a hacker news comment. Certain broad strokes absolutely apply, and when you get down to brass tacks it's about respecting personal freedom.
dowager_dan99 1y ago
This is a really negative and insulting comment towards people who are struggling with a very real, very emotional response to AI, and super-concerned about both the real and potential negatives that the rabid boosters won't even acknowledge. You don't have to "play the game" to make an impact, it's valid to try and challenge the math and change the rules too.
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  > This is a really negative and insulting comment towards people who are struggling with a very real, very emotional response to AI I disagree that my comment was negative at all. Many of those same people (not all) spend a lot of time making negative comments towards my work in AI, and tossing around authoritarian ideas of restriction in domains they understand like art and literature, while failing to also properly engage with the real issues such as intelligent mass surveillance and increased access to harmful information. They would sooner take these new freedom weapons out of the hands of the people while companies like Palintir and NSO Group continue to use them at scale. > super-concerned about both the real and potential negatives that the rabid boosters won't even acknowledge So am I, the difference is I am having a rational and not an emotional response, and I have spent a lot of time deeply understanding machine learning for the last decade in order to be able to have a measured, informed response. > You don't have to "play the game" to make an impact, it's valid to try and challenge the math and change the rules too I firmly believe you cannot ethically outlaw math, and this is part of why I have trouble empathizing with those who feel otherwise. People are so quick to support authoritarian power structures the moment it supposedly benefits them or their world view. Meanwhile, the informed are doing what they can to prevent this stuff from being used to surveil and classify humanity, and to find a balance that allows humans to coexist with artificial intelligence. We are not falling prey to reactionary politics and disinformation, and we are not willing to needlessly expand government overreach and legislate away critical individual freedom in order to achieve our goals.
  - spencerflem 1y ago
    its not outlawing math, its outlawing what companies can sell as a product. that's like saying that you can't outlaw selling bombs in a store because its "chemistry". Or even for usage- can we not outlaw shooting someone with a gun because it is "projectile physics"? Im glad you do oppose Palantir - we're on the same side and I support what you're doing! - but I also think you're leaving the most effective solution on the table by ignoring regulatory options.
bgwalter 1y ago
DDT was a very successful insecticide that was outlawed due to its adverse effects on humans.
- absurdo 1y ago
  It didn’t have a trillion dollar marketing campaign behind it.
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  I shouldn't have to tell you that producing, distributing and using a toxic chemical that negatively affects the earth and its biosphere are much, much different than allowing people to train and use models for personal use. This is a massive strawman and doesn't even deserve as much engagement as I've given it here.
harimau777 1y ago
Have they come up with anything? So far I haven't seen any solutions presented that are both politically viable and don't result in people being even more under the thumb of late stage capitalism.
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  This is one of the most complicated issues humanity has ever dealt with. Don't hold your breath, it's gonna be a while. Society at large doesn't even have a healthy relationship with the internet and mobile phones, these advancements in artificial intelligence came at both a good and awful time.

Workaccount2 1y ago

For me it threatens to be like a spell check. Back 20 years ago when I was still in school and still hand writing for many assignments, my spelling was very good. Nowadays it's been a long time since my brain totally checked out on spelling. Everything I write in every case has spell check, so why waste neurons on spelling? I fear the same will happen on a much broader level with AI.

kiitos 1y ago
What? Who is spending any brain cycles on spelling? When you write a word, you just write the word, the spelling is... intrinsic? automatic? certainly not something that you have to, like, actively think about?
- username223 1y ago
  ... until spellcheck gets "AI," and starts turning correctly-spelled words into different words that it thinks are more likely. (Don't get me started on "its" vs. "it's," which autocorrect frequently randomly incorrects.)
- steveklabnik 1y ago
  I both agree and disagree, I don't regularly think about spelling, but there are certain words I know my brain always gets wrong, so when I run into one of those, things come crashing to a halt for a second while I try to remember if I'm still spelling them wrong or if I've finally trained myself to do it correctly.
- code_biologist 1y ago
  I experience the same but I've always been an extremely strong speller. I think it's a biased viewpoint. I remember the kids in grade school who really struggled, and I've always wondered how that same group fares these days with autocorrect: if they pick up the correct spelling through repeat exposure or the opposite is true and they end up relying on autocorrect. I don't know of any of the research, but I suspect that teaching reading via "sight reading" over phonics is heavily detrimental to developing an intrinsic automatic sense of spelling.