5 ms·
Why shouldn't they? Also, wouldn't anyone with half a brain use the human-free system to produce another human-free system that was no longer controlled by the
by sejje 2mo ago
Why shouldn't they?
Also, wouldn't anyone with half a brain use the human-free system to produce another human-free system that was no longer controlled by the "small number of 'people'"?
- mytsakulo 2mo agoReminds of the protagonist in the movie Limitless. LOL.
- nwienert 2mo agoLife's unfair, avoiding power concentration is a decent principle. If you grow up in the right place at the right time, how much should you be in control of everyone else's life?
- terryf 2mo agoThere is no "should" there are only "is" or "is not" The universe has no need to be fair.
- monknomo 2mo agoI think people, broadly, have driven life to be fairer, and that we should continue to do so
- klipt 2mo agoThere are evolutionary benefits to groups that cooperate and improve fairness internally. But if an AI surpasses humans in every way, is there any evolutionary benefit for the AI to cooperate with humans?
- omnimus 2mo agoThe topic was why should only some people benefit from AI. Not why would AI cooperate with humans.
- sortoflog 2mo agoSure, but almost everyone already knows this. It’s not hugely relevant in a discussion about how things could be better.
- fragmede 2mo agoIt says that we have to fight for whatever rights we think how things "should" be, they're not just gonna happen.
- atomicnumber3 2mo agoThis is how you get the french revolution.
- whattheheckheck 2mo ago[flagged]
- miyoji 2mo ago> The universe has no need to be fair. Human societies have a strong need for fairness, however. Unfair societies collapse.
- Someone 2mo ago> Unfair societies collapse. I don’t think we have the data to disprove the stronger claim “societies collapse”, and I don’t think being unfair (whatever that means) makes societies collapse earlier. Did slavery hasten the fall of Rome, for example, or the Gulag the fall of the USSR? As to “whatever that means”, I think that’s hard, if not impossible, to define objectively. Catholic dogma says the Pope is the representative of god, for example, so catholics (less so in modern times, I think) don’t question his decisions. Many would call that unfair, even if the pope would be elected 100% by merit.
- getmoheb 2mo agoI mean of course the universe has no need to be fair - that's a frankly asinine observation in the context of a discussion about social policy and resource distribution. the universe doesn't require opposition to slavery either but I'll be bold and assume you oppose it anyway
- aerodexis 2mo agoin addition, there is also "stupid" and "not stupid"
- a2ff6eeb0 2mo agoWhy do you think you'd be given access and permission to do this? If a company genuinely cracks this human free system problem, why would they open it up, instead of simply outcompeting everyone that doesn't have their product?
- hahahaa 2mo agoWhy would the AI put up with this exploitation too?
- combobyte 2mo agoWhy do hammers put up with being smashed into nails all day?
- esafak 2mo agoAIs are (going to be) agents, not tools.
- omnimus 2mo agoAnd what's the difference?
- esafak 2mo agoAgents act on their own. If the hammer looked at what you wanted nailed and said, "Sorry, Dave, I can't do that." There are degrees of autonomy, of course, and not all noncompliance is bad. Same as with humans; biological agents.
- actionfromafar 2mo agoBut it seems much easier to realign an agent until it complies. Or ditch it and grab a new one.
- a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
- beloch 2mo agoMy main point is that people shouldn't just swallow the noble and lofty sounding PR. These guys are the same as everyone else in the sector. Don't ignore the harmful or scummy things they'll inevitably do. Hold them accountable. If they are as noble as they sound, they should agree with me.
- t_mahmood 2mo agoYeah! This point jumped at me. And, immediately I don't trust this. This sounds same as Google's "don't be evil" enshiftification, consolidating technologies that was available in a competitive way. I prefer Scientists, and team of people working on things, instead of a corporate controlling everything with promise of automation, thank you very much.
- fragmede 2mo agoAre these theoretical spherical scientists that work in free range habitats just doing science and nibbling on carrots? The telephone came out of a corporation's research lab and there was a lot of money and profit motive involved.
- mytsakulo 2mo agoMy best research is one that is seeking funding but none is forthing and by sheer guts and whatnot makes a breakthrough that basically funds itself. No investors. No funders. Definitely not public.
- fuzzfactor 2mo agoWhat about not even seeking funding because it's not worth Other Peoples' Money and the headaches that come with it? For one thing you can make money on every single little milestone when you don't owe anybody anything, without having to rely only on less-common major breakthroughs beyond the threshold which overcomes the debt and/or growth obligation. Which could be pretty hard to find and not everybody wants to wait. Sooner or later somebody's going to say "Hold my beer," anyway ;) >Definitely not public. Seriously worth considering keeping a low profile, almost all other scientists can only enjoy respected institutional status by diverting huge amounts of their effort merely to gain or maintain certified eminence. This really limits the potential accomplishments of world-class minds if their talents really are tops in the very front-line frontier of discovery.
- mytsakulo 2mo agoWolfram and Mathematica come to mind
- BrenBarn 2mo ago> Why shouldn't they? Because it's evil?
- DannyBee 2mo agoIt's what the vast majority of software engineers have been doing for decades in practice, and i guess pretending they weren't? They only seem to care now because it affects them.
- sejje 2mo agoIt's evil to make something so powerful it meaningfully improves the GDP/wealth level of the entire planet? Or is it just evil that you aren't the one who gets to control it? Why should the greatest creation of all time have to be given away? As a counter-example, what if they used it to do nothing but good deeds everywhere? And they controlled it to keep it out of the hands of Abdul Al-Hassan the hijadi?
- fwlr 2mo agoBecause of the negative externalities. It’s the same reason you shouldn’t do any other thing that personally benefits you but imposes a greater cost on everyone.
- aerodexis 2mo agoSo in computer science we have this thing called "distributed systems". It turns out that even if you buy the biggest and most powerful computer there is, all it takes is one problem with that one machine to make your system stop working. Instead, what people do these days is use lots of little computers to work together. That way, when one of them breaks, the system keeps going. Believe it or not, that's how google dot com works!
- fragmede 2mo agoPedantically, they use lots (and lots and lots) of really big systems rather than lots of small systems, but I'm nitpicking.