6 ms·

> The problem is executives want to completely remove humans from the loop, which almost universally leads to disastrous results Thanks for your words of wisdo

by jll29 1y ago

> The problem is executives want to completely remove humans from the loop, which almost universally leads to disastrous results Thanks for your words of wisdom, which touch on a very important other point I want to raise: often, we (i.e., developers, researchers) construct a technology that would be helpful and "net benign" if deployed as a tool for humans to use, instead of deploying it in order to replace humans. But then along comes a greedy business manager who reckons recklessly that using said technology not as a tool, but in full automation mode, results will be 5% worse, but save 15% of staff costs; and they decide that that is a fantastic trade-off for the company - yet employees may lose and customers may lose. The big problem is that developers/researchers lose control of what they develop, usually once the project is completed if they ever had control in the first place. What can we do? Perhaps write open source licenses that are less liberal?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
kragen 1y ago
You're trying to put out a forest fire with an eyedropper. Stock your underground bunkers with enough food and water for the rest of your life and work hard to persuade the AI that you're not a threat. If possible, upload your consciousness to a starwisp and accelerate it out of the Solar System as close to lightspeed as you can possibly get it. Those measures might work. (Or they might be impossible, or insufficient.) Changing your license won't.
- antonvs 1y ago
  Alternatively, persuade the AI that you are all-powerful and that it should fear and worship you. Probably a more achievable approach, and there’s precedent for it.
  - kragen 1y ago
    That only works on the AIs that aren't a real threat anyway, and I don't think it helps with the social harm done by greedy business managers with less powerful AIs. In fact, it might worsen it.
  - Bendy 1y ago
    That didn’t work out for God, we still killed him.
  - mistersquid 1y ago
    > Alternatively, persuade the AI that you are all-powerful and that it should fear and worship you. I understand this is a bit deeper into one of the _joke_ threads, but maybe there’s something here? There is a distinction to be made between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness. Where AI can be measured, we cannot yet measure consciousness despite that many humans could lay plausible claim to possessing consciousness (being conscious). If AI is trained to revere or value consciousness while simultaneously being unable to verify it possesses consciousness (is conscious), would AI be in a position to value consciousness in (human) beings who attest to being conscious?
    - antonvs 1y ago
      > being unable to verify it possesses consciousness One of the strange properties of consciousness is that an entity with consciousness can generally feel pretty confident in believing they have it. (Whether they're justified in that belief is another question - see eliminativism.) I'd expect a conscious machine to find itself in a similar position: it would "know" it was conscious because of its experiences, but it wouldn't be able to prove that to anyone else. Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum" refers to this. He used "cogito" (thought) to "include everything that is within us in such a way that we are immediately aware [conscii] of it." A translation into a more modern (philosophical) context might say something more like "I have conscious awareness, therefore I am." I'm not sure what implications this might have for a conscious machine. Its perspective on human value might come from something other than belief in human consciousness - for example, our negative impact on the environment. (There have was that recent case where an LLM generated text describing a willingness to kill interfering humans.) In a best case scenario, it might conclude that all consciousness is valuable, including humans, but since humans haven't collectively reached that conclusion, it's not clear that a machine trained on human data would.
- posnet 1y ago
  This one right here Mr. Basilisk
sjs382 1y ago
> Grammarly is great for sniffing out extra words and passive voice. But it doesn't get writing for humorous effect, context, deliberate repetition, etc. > But then along comes a greedy business manager who reckons recklessly Thanks for this. :)
- kragen 1y ago
  I recklessly reckon I will go through the gateless gate to hear the sound of one hand clapping.
csinode 1y ago
The problem here is societal, not technological. An end state where people do less work than they do today but society is more productive is desirable, and we shouldn't be trying to force companies/governments/etc to employ people to do an unnecessary job. The problem is that people who are laid off often experience significant life disruption. And people who work in a field that is largely or entirely replaced by technology often experience permanent disruption. However, there's no reason it has to be this way - the fact people having their jobs replace by technology are completely screwed over is a result of the society we have all created together, it's not a rule of nature.
- qotgalaxy 1y ago
  So it's simple: don't do anything at all about the technology that is the impetus for these horrible disruptions, just completely rebuild our entire society instead.
- selcuka 1y ago
  > However, there's no reason it has to be this way - the fact people having their jobs replace by technology are completely screwed over is a result of the society we have all created together, it's not a rule of nature. I agree. We need a radical change (some version of universal basic income comes to mind) that would allow people to safely change careers if their profession is no longer relevant.
  - b3ing 1y ago
    No way that will ever happen when we have a party that thinks Medicare, Medicaid and social security is unnecessary for the poor or middle class. But you better believe all our representatives have that covered for themselves while pretending to serve us (they only serve those that bribe/lobby them)
    - selcuka 1y ago
      > No way that will ever happen when we have a party that thinks Medicare, Medicaid and social security is unnecessary for the poor or middle class. This is obviously because the current ruling class can't see what is coming. Historically speaking, the motivation for the elite to support social programs or reforms has been the instinct to preserve social stability, not altruism. The New Deal did not happen because "the party thought that Social Security and unemployment insurance are necessary for the poor or middle class." It happened to prevent civil unrest and the rise of radical ideologies.
montagg 1y ago
I think you’re describing the principle/agent problem that people have wrestled with forever. Oppenheimer comes to mind. You make something, but because you don’t own it—others caused and directed the effort—you don’t control it. But the people who control things can’t make things. Should only the people who can make things decide how they are used though? I think that’s also folly. What about the rest of society affected by those things? It’s ultimately a societal decision-making problem: who has power, and why, and how does the use of power affect who has power (accountability).
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  I think the people who can make things have a moral obligation not to turn them over to people who will use them irresponsibly But unfortunately what is or isn't an irresponsible use is very easy to debate endlessly in circles. Meanwhile people are being harmed like crazy while we can't figure it out
chii 1y ago
> The big problem is that developers/researchers lose control if these developers/researchers are being paid by someone else, why should that same someone else be giving up the control that they paid for? If these developers/researchers are paying the research themselves (e.g., a startup of their own founding), then why would they ever lose control, unless they sell it?
- wmeredith 1y ago
  This is a good point. FAANG or whatever you want to call it now has spent billions hovering up a couple generations' best minds who willing sold their intellect to make endless engagement loops.
Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
The problem of those greedy business managers you speak of is that, they don't care how the company does 10 year down the line and I almost feel as if everybody is just doing things which work short term ignoring the long term consequences. As the comment above said that we need a human in the loop for better results, Well firstly it also depends on human to human. A senior can be way more productive in the loop than a junior. So Everybody has just stopped hiring juniors because they cost money and they will deal with the AI almost-slop later/ someone else will deal with it. Now the current seniors will one day retire but we won't have a new generation of seniors because nobody is giving juniors a chance or that's what I've heard about the job market being brutal.
neochief 1y ago
What book did you write?

by jll29 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

kragen 1y ago

You're trying to put out a forest fire with an eyedropper. Stock your underground bunkers with enough food and water for the rest of your life and work hard to persuade the AI that you're not a threat. If possible, upload your consciousness to a starwisp and accelerate it out of the Solar System as close to lightspeed as you can possibly get it. Those measures might work. (Or they might be impossible, or insufficient.) Changing your license won't.

antonvs 1y ago
Alternatively, persuade the AI that you are all-powerful and that it should fear and worship you. Probably a more achievable approach, and there’s precedent for it.
- kragen 1y ago
  That only works on the AIs that aren't a real threat anyway, and I don't think it helps with the social harm done by greedy business managers with less powerful AIs. In fact, it might worsen it.
- Bendy 1y ago
  That didn’t work out for God, we still killed him.
- mistersquid 1y ago
  > Alternatively, persuade the AI that you are all-powerful and that it should fear and worship you. I understand this is a bit deeper into one of the _joke_ threads, but maybe there’s something here? There is a distinction to be made between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness. Where AI can be measured, we cannot yet measure consciousness despite that many humans could lay plausible claim to possessing consciousness (being conscious). If AI is trained to revere or value consciousness while simultaneously being unable to verify it possesses consciousness (is conscious), would AI be in a position to value consciousness in (human) beings who attest to being conscious?
  - antonvs 1y ago
    > being unable to verify it possesses consciousness One of the strange properties of consciousness is that an entity with consciousness can generally feel pretty confident in believing they have it. (Whether they're justified in that belief is another question - see eliminativism.) I'd expect a conscious machine to find itself in a similar position: it would "know" it was conscious because of its experiences, but it wouldn't be able to prove that to anyone else. Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum" refers to this. He used "cogito" (thought) to "include everything that is within us in such a way that we are immediately aware [conscii] of it." A translation into a more modern (philosophical) context might say something more like "I have conscious awareness, therefore I am." I'm not sure what implications this might have for a conscious machine. Its perspective on human value might come from something other than belief in human consciousness - for example, our negative impact on the environment. (There have was that recent case where an LLM generated text describing a willingness to kill interfering humans.) In a best case scenario, it might conclude that all consciousness is valuable, including humans, but since humans haven't collectively reached that conclusion, it's not clear that a machine trained on human data would.
posnet 1y ago
This one right here Mr. Basilisk

sjs382 1y ago

> Grammarly is great for sniffing out extra words and passive voice. But it doesn't get writing for humorous effect, context, deliberate repetition, etc. > But then along comes a greedy business manager who reckons recklessly Thanks for this. :)

kragen 1y ago
I recklessly reckon I will go through the gateless gate to hear the sound of one hand clapping.

csinode 1y ago

The problem here is societal, not technological. An end state where people do less work than they do today but society is more productive is desirable, and we shouldn't be trying to force companies/governments/etc to employ people to do an unnecessary job. The problem is that people who are laid off often experience significant life disruption. And people who work in a field that is largely or entirely replaced by technology often experience permanent disruption. However, there's no reason it has to be this way - the fact people having their jobs replace by technology are completely screwed over is a result of the society we have all created together, it's not a rule of nature.

qotgalaxy 1y ago
So it's simple: don't do anything at all about the technology that is the impetus for these horrible disruptions, just completely rebuild our entire society instead.
selcuka 1y ago
> However, there's no reason it has to be this way - the fact people having their jobs replace by technology are completely screwed over is a result of the society we have all created together, it's not a rule of nature. I agree. We need a radical change (some version of universal basic income comes to mind) that would allow people to safely change careers if their profession is no longer relevant.
- b3ing 1y ago
  No way that will ever happen when we have a party that thinks Medicare, Medicaid and social security is unnecessary for the poor or middle class. But you better believe all our representatives have that covered for themselves while pretending to serve us (they only serve those that bribe/lobby them)
  - selcuka 1y ago
    > No way that will ever happen when we have a party that thinks Medicare, Medicaid and social security is unnecessary for the poor or middle class. This is obviously because the current ruling class can't see what is coming. Historically speaking, the motivation for the elite to support social programs or reforms has been the instinct to preserve social stability, not altruism. The New Deal did not happen because "the party thought that Social Security and unemployment insurance are necessary for the poor or middle class." It happened to prevent civil unrest and the rise of radical ideologies.

montagg 1y ago

I think you’re describing the principle/agent problem that people have wrestled with forever. Oppenheimer comes to mind. You make something, but because you don’t own it—others caused and directed the effort—you don’t control it. But the people who control things can’t make things. Should only the people who can make things decide how they are used though? I think that’s also folly. What about the rest of society affected by those things? It’s ultimately a societal decision-making problem: who has power, and why, and how does the use of power affect who has power (accountability).

bluefirebrand 1y ago
I think the people who can make things have a moral obligation not to turn them over to people who will use them irresponsibly But unfortunately what is or isn't an irresponsible use is very easy to debate endlessly in circles. Meanwhile people are being harmed like crazy while we can't figure it out

chii 1y ago

> The big problem is that developers/researchers lose control if these developers/researchers are being paid by someone else, why should that same someone else be giving up the control that they paid for? If these developers/researchers are paying the research themselves (e.g., a startup of their own founding), then why would they ever lose control, unless they sell it?

wmeredith 1y ago
This is a good point. FAANG or whatever you want to call it now has spent billions hovering up a couple generations' best minds who willing sold their intellect to make endless engagement loops.

Imustaskforhelp 1y ago

The problem of those greedy business managers you speak of is that, they don't care how the company does 10 year down the line and I almost feel as if everybody is just doing things which work short term ignoring the long term consequences. As the comment above said that we need a human in the loop for better results, Well firstly it also depends on human to human. A senior can be way more productive in the loop than a junior. So Everybody has just stopped hiring juniors because they cost money and they will deal with the AI almost-slop later/ someone else will deal with it. Now the current seniors will one day retire but we won't have a new generation of seniors because nobody is giving juniors a chance or that's what I've heard about the job market being brutal.

neochief 1y ago

What book did you write?