Comment by ethbr1
2 years ago
AI guided step-by-steps can fill in for a lack of rudimentary knowledge, as long as one can follow instructions.
Conversational interfaces definitely increase the accessibility of knowledge.
And critically, SaaS AI platforms increase the availability of AI. E.g. the person who wouldn't be able to set up and run a local model, but can click a button on a website.
It seems reasonable to preclude SaaS platforms from making it trivial to produce the worse societal harms. E.g. prevent stable diffusion services from returning celebrities or politicians, or LLMs from producing political content.
Sure, it's still possible. But a knee high barrier at least keeps out those who aren't smart enough to step over it.
I suppose you're right, I think the resistance I feel is rooted in not wanting to believe the average person is so stupid that getting a "1-2-3" list from a GPT interface will make them successful vs an Anarchist Cookbook (that's been in publication for 52 years) or online equivalent that merely requires a web search and a bit of navigation. Another factor is "second-order effects" (might not be the right word, maybe "network effects"), where one viral vid or news article says "someone made _____ and $EXTRAORDINARY_THING_HAPPENED" might cause a million people to imitate and begin with searching "how to make _____". Then the media spins their controversy of "should we ban AI from teaching about ______" which causes even more people to search for it (streisand). who knows whats going to happen, I don't see much good coming out of it (this topic specifically).
I think we (generally, HN) underestimate how bad the average person is at searching.
There's a reason Google has suggested results and ignores portions of a query.
I know I've done 5 minute search chains and had people look at me like I was some kind of magician.
Depressing, but true.
> Conversational interfaces definitely increase the accessibility of knowledge.
Shouldn't increasing the accessibility of knowledge be a good thing but yet your tone seems to imply the opposite?
Depends on the value you ascribe to people's use of easy knowledge.
Circa-1995, I would have said uncategorically yes! It's a wonderful thing!
Today?
I'm much more of the opinion that knowledge hard-earned is knowledge valued and respected. And trivially-earned is... not.
I don't think it's possible to suppress knowledge. Even about NBC weapons.
But I'm on the fence as to whether "putting it on the high shelf where anyone has to work to get it" is a net positive or negative for society as a whole.
Even knowledge of how to commit genocide or manufacture chemical weapons?
Those are not big secrets. You can find history textbooks which explain how to become a dictator and order your minions to commit genocide. You can find plenty of recipes online which explain how to manufacture chemical weapons. In particular the original chemical weapon chlorine gas is rather trivial to create.
And yet genocide and use of chemical weapons are still fairly rare. Most people choose not to do those things, and there are a number of practical obstacles. Knowledge or lack thereof isn't the issue.
that knowledge (the science of how to manipulate people) may be helpful in stopping it from happening because it could be used to warn people that the new charismatic dictator has 9/10 properties of others who have committed atrocities.
tacit knowledge