← Back to context

Comment by ltbarcly3

5 hours ago

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think it's an effective orientation to a future world where the AI will be trained anyway.

Also, I don't think a PHD of Industrial Sociology is really a job anyone needs to have done, so it's unlikely anyone will bother training an AI to do it. That doesn't mean I think studying Industrial Sociology is worthless, I just think it's unlikely anyone will fund training an AI to do it. Besides, is that even how AI's are trained? By some professor somewhere teaching them how to do his/her job before being replaced? That's like how it worked in Player Piano by Vonnegut, but it's not how they actually work.

18 comments

ltbarcly3

Reply
gmueckl  5 hours ago

Here's a very strong take on the situation, more for discussion than a true representation of my own beliefs:

The ML models will be trained as long as we as the human society in charge allow them to be trained. Progress only happens if society allows it to happen. The commercial AI proponents are trying to do an end-run around societal adjustments, forcing change at a speed that is to fast for proper responses. It could be interpreted as a malicious attack. We, the people, could collectively decide to slow them down or to make them stop. Their hope is to confront us with a done deal before any opposition has found the resolve and organization to do anything meaningful about it.

We, collectively, need to decide where to draw the lines on this technology and we need to decide fast.

  • fleventynine  4 hours ago

    I don't think society has enough power to control what billionaires spend their money on. The promise of AI is such an attractive nuisance for power seekers that trying to crack down on it will just force it underground, where it will be developed with even less care and oversight than it is now.

    Our institutions aren't even able to control what dirt-poor pirates do on hardware they own. How in the heck are they going to be able to control what incomprehensibly-rich people do? They can purchase political favors from whichever nations are selling them.

    • dgellow  4 hours ago

      > trying to crack down on it will just force it underground, where it will be developed with even less care and oversight than it is now.

      With way less access to infrastructure, hardware, capital, people. That’s literally what we need, it should be constrained by having way less resources

      2 replies →

    • gmueckl  4 hours ago

      Advancing the state of the art takes so many resources that it can't happen underground, at least for now. Slap enough controls on the means and the handbrakes are on. So your doomsday scenario could be preventable. The crux is that enough people need to come out in favor to put constraints in place. It's not impossible, but public opinions form slowly.

  • yipinwong  5 hours ago

    Pretty naive take.

    EU and US are slowing down while China doesn't slow down. In fact, they are pushing harder after gathering so much info from workers, and facial recognitions set in place for half a decade.

  • bubblemoth  5 hours ago

    Is society in charge of them? Or is it a small collective of people?

    Edit: Typo

    • gmueckl  4 hours ago

      Society could take control back. It's not impossible. History has examples where people took control away from small collectives, although it wasn't always strictly lawfuly or even peaceful.

      To take it to the extreme, billions of virtual dollars wouldn't offer any protection against a determined lynch mob at the front door.

      More realistically, there is a lot of power in showing up in big numbers and protesting. It is beyond me why especially US culture doesn't accept that as an option these days.

  • eru  4 hours ago

    > We, collectively, need to decide where to draw the lines on this technology and we need to decide fast.

    I hope you, collectively, don't start deciding what deodorants I can wear. (Like Bernie Sanders infamously brought up.) Or what toys my daughter can play with. (As Donald Trump wanted.)