2 ms·

Well, you're very much wrong about that. The cat can be put back into the bag if we want to. It certainly happened before. Right now, companies are working ext

by gmueckl 10mo ago

Well, you're very much wrong about that. The cat can be put back into the bag if we want to. It certainly happened before. Right now, companies are working extremely hard to give the impression that AI technology is essential. But that is a purposefully manufactured illusion. It's a set of ideas planted in people's heads. Marketing in those megacompanies that introduce new technologies like LLMs and AR glasses to end users is very much focused on reshaping society around their product. They think BIG. We need more awareness that this is happening so that we can push back in a coordinated and meaningful way. And then we can support politicians that implement that agenda.

embedding-shape 10mo ago
> Well, you're very much wrong about that. The cat can be put back into the bag if we want to. It certainly happened before. Name a single technology that was invented, people figured out the drawbacks where bigger than the benefits, and then humanity just stopped caring about it altogether? Not even the technology with the biggest drawback we've created so far (literally make the earth inhospitable if deployed at scale) apparently been important enough to do so with, so I'm eager to hear what specific cats have been put back in what hats, if you'd entertain me.
joquarky 10mo ago
> It certainly happened before. With nuclear weapons, human cloning, chemical weapons, and ozone destruction. All of these are highly centralized, controlled via big government-scale operations. How do you propose doing this with GPT LLM tech that has been open sourced/weights and decentralized?
- gmueckl 10mo ago
  There are plenty of ways. For example, the technology would die completely the moment companies get barred from creating or running it. End users don't have the means to update those models and they would age and become useless.
  - joquarky 10mo ago
    How to reconcile this with the general consensus here that open [source] models are only 6-12 months behind the leading commercial models?

by gmueckl 10mo ago

embedding-shape 10mo ago

> Well, you're very much wrong about that. The cat can be put back into the bag if we want to. It certainly happened before. Name a single technology that was invented, people figured out the drawbacks where bigger than the benefits, and then humanity just stopped caring about it altogether? Not even the technology with the biggest drawback we've created so far (literally make the earth inhospitable if deployed at scale) apparently been important enough to do so with, so I'm eager to hear what specific cats have been put back in what hats, if you'd entertain me.

joquarky 10mo ago

> It certainly happened before. With nuclear weapons, human cloning, chemical weapons, and ozone destruction. All of these are highly centralized, controlled via big government-scale operations. How do you propose doing this with GPT LLM tech that has been open sourced/weights and decentralized?

gmueckl 10mo ago
There are plenty of ways. For example, the technology would die completely the moment companies get barred from creating or running it. End users don't have the means to update those models and they would age and become useless.
- joquarky 10mo ago
  How to reconcile this with the general consensus here that open [source] models are only 6-12 months behind the leading commercial models?