Comment by mschuster91
3 days ago
> It's unclear from your comment whether you think this is good or bad. You certainly seem to think it is inevitable.
I think it is bad, but the consequences are manageable.
> someone is making it happen
We're past that point. Open weights plus local inference is already good enough for an awful lot of use cases. Even if we'd say we ban all AI training, we yeet China and the US from the Internet... it's too late.
> But I hope you realize that we have the chance to fight back and get this right.
The best chance we have is mitigate the consequences. That means first and foremost UBI, backed by actually useful corporate taxation. We need to prepare our economies for the shift towards an economy that requires fewer and fewer people to actually do work. For the moment, the only thing that is relatively safe from both automation and scale efficiencies is some trades (plumbers and electricians), some sections of healthcare and some sections of black collar work. Everything else is under massive threat from AI, automation (have you looked at precision farming?!) or both, and politicians seem like a deer frozen in the headlights.
This is the classic doomer take. Beware of dramatic but simple answers. UBI doesn’t really seem like a sustainable way forward, and at the same time there’s so much we don’t know about the limits.
Don’t play half-court tennis. Other people can read and write too, and social shifts are simultaneous slow, but then sudden.
For example, I’m not seeing a lot of trust in AI as a technology for things that are actually important. It takes one wrong diagnosis from an expensive AI doctor to erode all trust and make everyone prefer a human expert.