3 ms·

I understand the appeal of saying fuck you to billionaires and pathological liars CEOs and the annoying usages of AI, but i don't understand the wider "fuck you

I understand the appeal of saying fuck you to billionaires and pathological liars CEOs and the annoying usages of AI, but i don't understand the wider "fuck you AI". AI are here, is it going to demolish and (maybe) reconstruct the world as we know it, trying to avoid it it's just silly. There is no sane world where we can "stop AI", even if every single researcher were to do vanish tomorrow and the hardware and schematics magically gone, it would still only be a stopgap. So...What are you trying to achieve?

meander_water 22d ago
A humanist revolution. Sure we can't stop the technology, but we _can_ stop the importance and money heaped into it.
- ChickeNES 22d ago
  Being against technology is anti-human
  - card_zero 22d ago
    This is being against interest in a specific technology. For example I could say "I think yo-yos are stupid". But the yo-yo is here to stay! The world must adapt to the yo-yo or be left behind, because we all think that yo-yos are very important and we use them constantly to do everything instead of using our hands! Or we could not be interested in that, because it's stupid.
    - ChickeNES 22d ago
      I didn't say disliking a particular technology is anti-human. I said being against technology is.
      - card_zero 22d ago
        True enough, but who was against technology?
  - meander_water 21d ago
    This is not being against technology. It's ensuring that technology is used to serve humans, and not the other way around. https://caiml.org/dighum/dighum-manifesto/ https://caiml.org/dighum/dighum-manifesto/
eudamoniac 22d ago
I don't like this inevitability framing. It's not true of other actually dangerous things. "There is no sane world where we can stop drugs/nukes/guns/CP, even if every single chemist/physicist/metallurgist/pedo were to vanish tomorrow, it would only be a stopgap [thus we should just let everyone have those things]." Yes, those things will exist in some highly restricted or illegal contexts, but that doesn't mean any of them need to be in the workplace or accessible to every citizen. Usage and access and development could be heavily restricted in just the same way. You don't think AI is dangerous enough for this comparison to be sensible, but I'm not so sure. Likewise, arguments that other countries will have it therefore we must have it, are specious. Some countries have nukes, we don't let every country have them, we certainly don't let citizens have them; some countries produce CP, we don't let citizens access it; some countries have millions of guns among citizens, we don't let the guns cross the border. All this is to say that it would not be infeasible to broadly ban AI in most contexts. Obviously this won't happen in the current political climate, but it's not a law of the universe that AI pervading daily life is inevitable.

meander_water 22d ago

A humanist revolution. Sure we can't stop the technology, but we _can_ stop the importance and money heaped into it.

ChickeNES 22d ago
Being against technology is anti-human
- card_zero 22d ago
  This is being against interest in a specific technology. For example I could say "I think yo-yos are stupid". But the yo-yo is here to stay! The world must adapt to the yo-yo or be left behind, because we all think that yo-yos are very important and we use them constantly to do everything instead of using our hands! Or we could not be interested in that, because it's stupid.
  - ChickeNES 22d ago
    I didn't say disliking a particular technology is anti-human. I said being against technology is.
    - card_zero 22d ago
      True enough, but who was against technology?
- meander_water 21d ago
  This is not being against technology. It's ensuring that technology is used to serve humans, and not the other way around. https://caiml.org/dighum/dighum-manifesto/ https://caiml.org/dighum/dighum-manifesto/

eudamoniac 22d ago

I don't like this inevitability framing. It's not true of other actually dangerous things. "There is no sane world where we can stop drugs/nukes/guns/CP, even if every single chemist/physicist/metallurgist/pedo were to vanish tomorrow, it would only be a stopgap [thus we should just let everyone have those things]." Yes, those things will exist in some highly restricted or illegal contexts, but that doesn't mean any of them need to be in the workplace or accessible to every citizen. Usage and access and development could be heavily restricted in just the same way. You don't think AI is dangerous enough for this comparison to be sensible, but I'm not so sure. Likewise, arguments that other countries will have it therefore we must have it, are specious. Some countries have nukes, we don't let every country have them, we certainly don't let citizens have them; some countries produce CP, we don't let citizens access it; some countries have millions of guns among citizens, we don't let the guns cross the border. All this is to say that it would not be infeasible to broadly ban AI in most contexts. Obviously this won't happen in the current political climate, but it's not a law of the universe that AI pervading daily life is inevitable.