5 ms·

More capable AI systems make the world better. If you don't like AI written material on principle, you can simply choose not to read it. Follow human writers wh

More capable AI systems make the world better. If you don't like AI written material on principle, you can simply choose not to read it. Follow human writers who don't use AI.

Gerardo1 1y ago
> More capable AI systems make the world better. Support that. Now support it while including direct costs and externalities.
- frozenseven 1y ago
  If the cost and externality is that people are upset about it, I honestly don't care.
  - Gerardo1 1y ago
    No you can start with actual money.
    - frozenseven 1y ago
      What about money? You can't force me to want (or not want) someone's goods and services. If you're worried about large scale automation and so forth, I'm fine with something like UBI.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        > More capable AI systems make the world better [so long as we also include the mitigations necessary due to the known and unknown downsides of AI] I guess that's what you meant?
        frozenseven 1y ago
        In reference to automation and UBI? I don't see automation as a downside. Of course you need to readjust, as with any large scale change.
      - Gerardo1 1y ago
        > What about money? The hundreds of billions being sunk into AI. > You can't force me to want (or not want) someone's goods and services. What are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything in this conversation? > If you're worried about large scale automation and so forth I'm not. > I'm fine with something like UBI. Well as long as you're fine with UBI I guess we can put this conversation to rest. Seriously, if you don't want to actually participate in the conversation you can just ignore comments. It's fine.
        frozenseven 1y ago
        In retrospect, we might realize that we didn't spend enough money on AI. Highest-leverage moment in history and such. But, ok. Let's leave it at that. Peace.
  - EGreg 1y ago
    The cost and externality are: 1) Lesser cost: people start to not want each other for anything, and therefore lose income of any kind, and are gradually bred out of existence like with horses and oxen in the 20th century 2) Greater cost: bot swarms separate people and can bring about any sort of effect at scale, with people powerless to stop it — eg destroy reputations, bring about support for wars, take over control, or really anything
    - frozenseven 1y ago
      How did you jump from AI writing to humans becoming extinct? People find each other plenty interesting. Those who want to start families, work together, etc. can always do so. As for misuse, you are again catastrophizing. Just because a thing can be misused doesn't mean it will. That's obviously not the goal of AI.
      - EGreg 1y ago
        I didnt say extinct Horses and oxen aren’t extinct. Just nowhere near their peak where they had been before cars and tractors. They just won’t have as many children. It is already happening. People need each other less and less thanks to technology. And they won’t be paying each other for anything when they have AI. Soon romantic relationships will be disrupted also, it’s called a “superstimulus” (eg when birds prefer fake rounder eggs to their own). Dating robots. Extrapolate a few decades out and what do you see? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuQqlhqAUuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuQqlhqAUuQ
        frozenseven 1y ago
        Ah, seems like you walked back a bit on that. In any case, I don't see why you're so concerned about how other people choose to live their lives. For instance, if someone doesn't want kids, so what? You can't control that. Nor should you.
        EGreg 1y ago
        Just to be clear, you are supporting a world where humans are powerless, few in number, and don’t interact much with each other anymore. As I’ve been saying for a decade, we are building a zoo for ourselves.
taneq 1y ago
That’s precisely the problem, though. The internet is already rapidly filling with AI-generated slop, and it takes a non-trivial amount of human brain power to determine whether the how-to article you’re reading is actually a reliable source or whether it was churned out to generate ad revenue. The infinite number of monkeys with typewriters are generating something that sounds enough like Shakespeare that it’s making it harder to find the real thing.
- frozenseven 1y ago
  I deliberately wrote my comment in a way that would preemp this response. Yet here we are. I honestly have little to no problem with finding and filtering the stuff I want to see. All the writers and creators I liked five or ten years ago? Basically all of them are still there and not hard to find. My process of finding new people has not changed.
- HappMacDonald 1y ago
  Determining the quality of a how-to or any other kind of information you're looking for is the same job whether it was created by a human or by an AI. Check sources, read horizontally, patronize trusted producers and get your information from there. We've got a tragedy of the commons whereupon we've grown complacent that search engines and wisdom of crowds (of nameless strangers) would see us through, but that was never a good strategy to begin with. AI slop does little but highlight this fact and give us plenty of reason to vet our sources more carefully.
  - EGreg 1y ago
    This exact kind of oblivious response always appears like clockwork on HN underneath any criticism of AI. “It was always like this… AI does nothing new but…” I wonder if this is itself a form of AI generation LOL
  - taneq 1y ago
    Tragedy of the commons was a thing to consider when we had sheep that grazed on the commons. It changed significantly when we invented combine harvesters. The listicle-rot was already painful when the listicles were human-written and poorly researched. Automating the process has not improved the situation.
km144 1y ago
I feel that when making a claim like that, the burden of proof is on you to explain how AI makes the world a better place. I have seen far more of the opposite since the advent of GPT-3. Please do not say it makes you more productive at your job, unless you can also clearly derive how being better at your job might make the world a better place.
- frozenseven 1y ago
  I could list many breakthroughs in medicine, material science, and engineering. Point out how AI makes information more accessible, automates away drudgery, etc. I see it every day, making the world a better place. But I feel this disagreement isn't precisely about the technical details. If your stance is based on some fundamental idea of politics/philosophy, I can't change your mind.

More capable AI systems make the world better. If you don't like AI written material on principle, you can simply choose not to read it. Follow human writers who don't use AI.

Gerardo1 1y ago

> More capable AI systems make the world better. Support that. Now support it while including direct costs and externalities.

frozenseven 1y ago
If the cost and externality is that people are upset about it, I honestly don't care.
- Gerardo1 1y ago
  No you can start with actual money.
  - frozenseven 1y ago
    What about money? You can't force me to want (or not want) someone's goods and services. If you're worried about large scale automation and so forth, I'm fine with something like UBI.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      > More capable AI systems make the world better [so long as we also include the mitigations necessary due to the known and unknown downsides of AI] I guess that's what you meant?
      - frozenseven 1y ago
        In reference to automation and UBI? I don't see automation as a downside. Of course you need to readjust, as with any large scale change.
    - Gerardo1 1y ago
      > What about money? The hundreds of billions being sunk into AI. > You can't force me to want (or not want) someone's goods and services. What are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything in this conversation? > If you're worried about large scale automation and so forth I'm not. > I'm fine with something like UBI. Well as long as you're fine with UBI I guess we can put this conversation to rest. Seriously, if you don't want to actually participate in the conversation you can just ignore comments. It's fine.
      - frozenseven 1y ago
        In retrospect, we might realize that we didn't spend enough money on AI. Highest-leverage moment in history and such. But, ok. Let's leave it at that. Peace.
- EGreg 1y ago
  The cost and externality are: 1) Lesser cost: people start to not want each other for anything, and therefore lose income of any kind, and are gradually bred out of existence like with horses and oxen in the 20th century 2) Greater cost: bot swarms separate people and can bring about any sort of effect at scale, with people powerless to stop it — eg destroy reputations, bring about support for wars, take over control, or really anything
  - frozenseven 1y ago
    How did you jump from AI writing to humans becoming extinct? People find each other plenty interesting. Those who want to start families, work together, etc. can always do so. As for misuse, you are again catastrophizing. Just because a thing can be misused doesn't mean it will. That's obviously not the goal of AI.
    - EGreg 1y ago
      I didnt say extinct Horses and oxen aren’t extinct. Just nowhere near their peak where they had been before cars and tractors. They just won’t have as many children. It is already happening. People need each other less and less thanks to technology. And they won’t be paying each other for anything when they have AI. Soon romantic relationships will be disrupted also, it’s called a “superstimulus” (eg when birds prefer fake rounder eggs to their own). Dating robots. Extrapolate a few decades out and what do you see? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuQqlhqAUuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuQqlhqAUuQ
      - frozenseven 1y ago
        Ah, seems like you walked back a bit on that. In any case, I don't see why you're so concerned about how other people choose to live their lives. For instance, if someone doesn't want kids, so what? You can't control that. Nor should you.
        EGreg 1y ago
        Just to be clear, you are supporting a world where humans are powerless, few in number, and don’t interact much with each other anymore. As I’ve been saying for a decade, we are building a zoo for ourselves.

taneq 1y ago

That’s precisely the problem, though. The internet is already rapidly filling with AI-generated slop, and it takes a non-trivial amount of human brain power to determine whether the how-to article you’re reading is actually a reliable source or whether it was churned out to generate ad revenue. The infinite number of monkeys with typewriters are generating something that sounds enough like Shakespeare that it’s making it harder to find the real thing.

frozenseven 1y ago
I deliberately wrote my comment in a way that would preemp this response. Yet here we are. I honestly have little to no problem with finding and filtering the stuff I want to see. All the writers and creators I liked five or ten years ago? Basically all of them are still there and not hard to find. My process of finding new people has not changed.
HappMacDonald 1y ago
Determining the quality of a how-to or any other kind of information you're looking for is the same job whether it was created by a human or by an AI. Check sources, read horizontally, patronize trusted producers and get your information from there. We've got a tragedy of the commons whereupon we've grown complacent that search engines and wisdom of crowds (of nameless strangers) would see us through, but that was never a good strategy to begin with. AI slop does little but highlight this fact and give us plenty of reason to vet our sources more carefully.
- EGreg 1y ago
  This exact kind of oblivious response always appears like clockwork on HN underneath any criticism of AI. “It was always like this… AI does nothing new but…” I wonder if this is itself a form of AI generation LOL
- taneq 1y ago
  Tragedy of the commons was a thing to consider when we had sheep that grazed on the commons. It changed significantly when we invented combine harvesters. The listicle-rot was already painful when the listicles were human-written and poorly researched. Automating the process has not improved the situation.

km144 1y ago

I feel that when making a claim like that, the burden of proof is on you to explain how AI makes the world a better place. I have seen far more of the opposite since the advent of GPT-3. Please do not say it makes you more productive at your job, unless you can also clearly derive how being better at your job might make the world a better place.

frozenseven 1y ago
I could list many breakthroughs in medicine, material science, and engineering. Point out how AI makes information more accessible, automates away drudgery, etc. I see it every day, making the world a better place. But I feel this disagreement isn't precisely about the technical details. If your stance is based on some fundamental idea of politics/philosophy, I can't change your mind.