3 ms·

> There's a lot of issues, ranging over technical, cultural, environmental, and moral problems. But there's also obvious value. To say otherwise tells me you ha

by lapcat 4mo ago

> There's a lot of issues, ranging over technical, cultural, environmental, and moral problems. But there's also obvious value. To say otherwise tells me you haven't actually tried to make use of these tools. Why would you try to make use of these tools when there are obvious environmental and moral problems with them? What do you tell yourself about those problems, and how do you get past them?

asp_hornet 4mo ago
No OP but I can tell you exactly where I find my peace: 4 dependents, a cost of living that keeps rocketing and an industry that’s decided “the people who don’t glaze this shit don’t get to continue”. Maybe Ive sold out but what’s the alternative, I’m 17 years in, I can’t figure how I pivot my expertise and still support the family’s demands.
- lapcat 4mo ago
  Fair enough. I have no criticism for people whose employers are forcing it on employees. I blame the employers there. But the OP didn't sound like one of the reluctant.
  - asp_hornet 4mo ago
    Yeah, it sucks man. There was a good moment where I thought it wouldn’t come for my org but here I am. Not saying the tech doesn’t have merit but if you’re not blasting the slop cannon constantly and praising Dario for the pleasure, you’re on the list.
- thatfunkymunki 4mo ago
  I've heard it being described as an iterated prisoner's dilemma and very many people are very publicly defecting.
nixpulvis 4mo ago
I think it's worth understanding the technology so we can have informed strategies for how to best regulate it. We don't solve the climate crisis by abandoning all the technological progress which has put such a strain on our ecosystem, we solve it by rethinking how we use this technology, and finding new technologies and policies to better meet our needs.
- lapcat 4mo ago
  > I think it's worth understanding the technology so we can have informed strategies for how to best regulate it. There's a significant difference between understanding a technology and using a technology. We can understand how a technology is made without totally changing our workflows to rely on it essentially. How many cities do we have to blow up to understand nuclear weapons? That's a serious question, because atomic bombs were dropped on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. > We don't solve the climate crisis by abandoning all the technological progress which has put such a strain on our ecosystem, we solve it by rethinking how we use this technology I don't think that's true. Shouldn't we abandon fossil fuels? Switch to cleaner energy, solar, wind, geothermal, electric cars, etc.?
  - nixpulvis 4mo ago
    If a thinking machine can find new mathematical proofs we haven't thought of yet, it might also find new medicines and other things that really do make it worth finding a way to live with. If I can ask the thinking machine to find bugs in my code and it does, that seems nice to have. The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow. I'd start by trying to force tech companies to sell products at cost sooner, so it's not driving markets before it can truly be absorbed. I'd also ask for energy/resource consumers to be forced to buy climate credits which are used to help offset the impacts and fund research and development for sustainable technology.
    - lapcat 4mo ago
      Humans can already find new medicines and bugs in code. We didn't need AI to find the Covid vaccines, for example. > The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow. If something is immoral, do the ends justify the means? I would reiterate that you originally mentioned moral problems. > I'd start by trying to force tech companies to sell products at cost sooner, so it's not driving markets before it can truly be absorbed. That sounds an awful lot like abolishing capitalism. Which might actually help with the climate crisis, regardless of AI. > climate credits These always seemed like BS to me, a way for wealthy corporations to buy their way out of doing anything.

by lapcat 4mo ago

asp_hornet 4mo ago

No OP but I can tell you exactly where I find my peace: 4 dependents, a cost of living that keeps rocketing and an industry that’s decided “the people who don’t glaze this shit don’t get to continue”. Maybe Ive sold out but what’s the alternative, I’m 17 years in, I can’t figure how I pivot my expertise and still support the family’s demands.

lapcat 4mo ago
Fair enough. I have no criticism for people whose employers are forcing it on employees. I blame the employers there. But the OP didn't sound like one of the reluctant.
- asp_hornet 4mo ago
  Yeah, it sucks man. There was a good moment where I thought it wouldn’t come for my org but here I am. Not saying the tech doesn’t have merit but if you’re not blasting the slop cannon constantly and praising Dario for the pleasure, you’re on the list.
thatfunkymunki 4mo ago
I've heard it being described as an iterated prisoner's dilemma and very many people are very publicly defecting.

nixpulvis 4mo ago

I think it's worth understanding the technology so we can have informed strategies for how to best regulate it. We don't solve the climate crisis by abandoning all the technological progress which has put such a strain on our ecosystem, we solve it by rethinking how we use this technology, and finding new technologies and policies to better meet our needs.

lapcat 4mo ago
> I think it's worth understanding the technology so we can have informed strategies for how to best regulate it. There's a significant difference between understanding a technology and using a technology. We can understand how a technology is made without totally changing our workflows to rely on it essentially. How many cities do we have to blow up to understand nuclear weapons? That's a serious question, because atomic bombs were dropped on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. > We don't solve the climate crisis by abandoning all the technological progress which has put such a strain on our ecosystem, we solve it by rethinking how we use this technology I don't think that's true. Shouldn't we abandon fossil fuels? Switch to cleaner energy, solar, wind, geothermal, electric cars, etc.?
- nixpulvis 4mo ago
  If a thinking machine can find new mathematical proofs we haven't thought of yet, it might also find new medicines and other things that really do make it worth finding a way to live with. If I can ask the thinking machine to find bugs in my code and it does, that seems nice to have. The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow. I'd start by trying to force tech companies to sell products at cost sooner, so it's not driving markets before it can truly be absorbed. I'd also ask for energy/resource consumers to be forced to buy climate credits which are used to help offset the impacts and fund research and development for sustainable technology.
  - lapcat 4mo ago
    Humans can already find new medicines and bugs in code. We didn't need AI to find the Covid vaccines, for example. > The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow. If something is immoral, do the ends justify the means? I would reiterate that you originally mentioned moral problems. > I'd start by trying to force tech companies to sell products at cost sooner, so it's not driving markets before it can truly be absorbed. That sounds an awful lot like abolishing capitalism. Which might actually help with the climate crisis, regardless of AI. > climate credits These always seemed like BS to me, a way for wealthy corporations to buy their way out of doing anything.