"We are told that technology is helping redistribute wealth from the common people to a small subset of extremely rich men. But, as an extremely rich man, I don't really understand why this is a bad thing? Technology seems pretty cool to me!"
200fifty
joined 2 years ago
since we both have the High IQ feat you should be agreeing with me, after all we share the same privileged access to absolute truth. That we aren’t must mean you are unaligned/need to be further cleansed of thetans.
They have to agree, it's mathematically proven by Aumann's Agreement Theorem!
This is good! Though, he neglects to mention the group of people (including myself) who have yet to be sold on ai's usefulness at all (all critics of practical AI harms are lumped under 'reformers' implying they still see it as valuable but just currently misguided.)
Like, ok, so what if China develops it first? Now they can... generate more convincing spam, write software slightly faster with more bugs, and starve all their artists to death? ... Oh no, we'd better hurry up and compete with that!
a boring person’s idea of interesting
Agh this is such a good way of putting it. It has all the signifiers of a thing that has a lot of detail and care and effort put into it but it has none of the actual parts that make those things interesting or worth caring about. But of course it's going to appeal to people who don't understand the difference between those two things and only see the surface signifiers (marketers, executives, and tech bros being prime examples of this type of person)
ETA: and also of course this explains why their solution to bias is "just fake it to make the journalists happy." Why would you ever care about the actual substance when you can just make it look ok from a distance
I had the same thought as Emily Bender's first one there, lol. The map is interesting to me, but mostly as a demonstration of how anglosphere-centric these models are!
Yes, there is a lot of bunk AI safety discussions. But there are legitimate concerns as well.
Hey, don't worry, someone's standing up for--
AI is close to human level.
Uh, never mind
When you put it that way, I can't help but notice the parallels to Google's generative AI search feature, which suffers from a similar problem of "why would people keep writing posts as the source material for your AI if no one is gonna read it other than the AI web scraper"
The problem is I guess you'd need a significant corpus of human-written stuff in that language to make the LLM work in the first place, right?
Actually this is something I've been thinking about more generally: the "ai makes programmers obsolete" take sort of implies everyone continues to use javascript and python for everything forever and ever (and also that those languages never add any new idioms or features in the future I guess.)
Like, I guess now that we have AI, all computer language progress is just supposed to be frozen at September 2021? Where are you gonna get the training data to keep the AI up to date with the latest language developments or libraries?
It's a veritable paradigm shift. Just think of the synergy.
I definitely think the youths are stressed because of 'environmental pollution,' but not in the way this commenter means...