4 ms·

This is becoming a mainstream position for a number of reasons but I think the unifying concern across many demographics is the concern about the effects on pow

This is becoming a mainstream position for a number of reasons but I think the unifying concern across many demographics is the concern about the effects on power it will have. Nobody wants an omnipresent big brother in anybody's hands, and people are waking up to the fact that the infrastructure is already there without any real safeguards, all that's really needed is cheap intelligence to handle all the data.

skeledrew 5mo ago
I'd say this is a huge reason to actually push for more AI, especially open models. I agree that there are serious environmental, etc concerns BUT there will be an even larger problem in the future when this tech becomes incorporated into pretty much everything if there are only a couple providers with a -poly on the really good models. This thing is here to stay and will only get qualitatively better, and the way to prevent/offset the "omnipresent big brother" is to ensure that everyone has reasonable access to models with decent capability and know how to properly evaluate and use them.
- helterskelter 5mo ago
  I don't know if more models will offer a meaningful counter to those in power, who will have not only more resources, but also the military, law enforcement and effectively the law itself. Probably the most we can hope to do at this point is to dismantle the surveillance architecture. "Starve the beast" so to speak.
  - skeledrew 5mo ago
    I don't think there's a way to "starve the beast", unless completely isolating from society is an option (which it isn't for any but a sparse few). But the data it lives on can be diluted and made more piecemeal by keeping things local first, and spreading usage across multiple jurisdictions when more than local is needed.
    - helterskelter 5mo ago
      This, but we need to prevent as much of this data from being collected in the first place. All our traffic cameras for instance are being coopted into a massive surveillance network with no oversight, but this network doesn't exist if you don't have traffic cameras in the first place. I propose the J Edgar Hoover heuristic. Would X be something you'd want Hoover to have access to? If not, then don't build it.
Awoooooo 5mo ago
The main reason is that almost everyone's experience of AI is that it has replaced something or someone that did the job better before AI. That means the experience that vast majority of people have with AI is that it has made things worse. It's only the software devs with a different experience and they're over-represented in online comment sections. Also because the software devs have no lives and only talk to other software devs they're out of touch with the vast majority of people who fucking hate this shit now.

skeledrew 5mo ago

I'd say this is a huge reason to actually push for more AI, especially open models. I agree that there are serious environmental, etc concerns BUT there will be an even larger problem in the future when this tech becomes incorporated into pretty much everything if there are only a couple providers with a -poly on the really good models. This thing is here to stay and will only get qualitatively better, and the way to prevent/offset the "omnipresent big brother" is to ensure that everyone has reasonable access to models with decent capability and know how to properly evaluate and use them.

helterskelter 5mo ago
I don't know if more models will offer a meaningful counter to those in power, who will have not only more resources, but also the military, law enforcement and effectively the law itself. Probably the most we can hope to do at this point is to dismantle the surveillance architecture. "Starve the beast" so to speak.
- skeledrew 5mo ago
  I don't think there's a way to "starve the beast", unless completely isolating from society is an option (which it isn't for any but a sparse few). But the data it lives on can be diluted and made more piecemeal by keeping things local first, and spreading usage across multiple jurisdictions when more than local is needed.
  - helterskelter 5mo ago
    This, but we need to prevent as much of this data from being collected in the first place. All our traffic cameras for instance are being coopted into a massive surveillance network with no oversight, but this network doesn't exist if you don't have traffic cameras in the first place. I propose the J Edgar Hoover heuristic. Would X be something you'd want Hoover to have access to? If not, then don't build it.

Awoooooo 5mo ago

The main reason is that almost everyone's experience of AI is that it has replaced something or someone that did the job better before AI. That means the experience that vast majority of people have with AI is that it has made things worse. It's only the software devs with a different experience and they're over-represented in online comment sections. Also because the software devs have no lives and only talk to other software devs they're out of touch with the vast majority of people who fucking hate this shit now.