Ask HN: Viability of an anti-AI social movement? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Viability of an anti-AI social movement?

#41

Post by Wolfbeta » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 2:32 AM UTC

earthboundkid wrote: post #25

An AI already controls the world. It's just a dumbass paperclip maximizer called "capitalism" whose job is to make the line go up on a graph. It's a kind of cute design where instead of using silicon chips, they get organic beings to do minor calculations for them, and then it's the distribute computing problem from hell to get all the calculations combined and error corrected, but it basically works well enough, and…

Marx called this valorization.

"Just as capital, as value valorizing itself, views with indifference the particular physical guise in which labour appears in the labour process, whether as a steam-engine, dung heap or silk, so too the worker looks upon the particular content of his labour with equal indifference. His work belongs to capital, it is only the use-value of the commodity that he has sold, and he has only sold it to acquire money and, with the money, the means of subsistence."

Re: Ask HN: Viability of an anti-AI social movement?

#42

Post by Wolfbeta » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 2:35 AM UTC

solresol wrote: post #35

tqi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. How did rejecting atomic weapons go? 2. In what way does it "threaten human dignity" that is different from the technologies that came before it? Automation took away the livelihoods of people in industries like manufacturing decades ago. Feels like what is truly "different" this time around is just that you feel your job is threatened, so now it's a problem for all of society.

Not the pp, but: 1. For many countries (e.g. Australia), quite successfully. We said no, and then we didn't. 2. We can replace physical activity (e.g. machinery instead of human motion), and that doesn't move human beings from the place of control and power. Likewise, we can replace certain kinds of thinking work (e.g. programming or medicine) and that in itself isn't a major problem (except for the out-of-work progr…

Pure hedonism?

Re: Ask HN: Viability of an anti-AI social movement?

#43

Post by zach_garwood » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 2:39 AM UTC

In my opinion, the dangerous thing about AI is not its capabilities, but that (some) people think it's magic and are fully willing to give themselves up to it if it means they don't have to make any decisions.

Re: Ask HN: Viability of an anti-AI social movement?

#44

Post by darepublic » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 2:41 AM UTC

It is worrisome. People are quick to give up freedom if it also means they can give up responsibility. I can believe that our descendants in the not too distant future would accept whatever the AI told them unquestioningly. In the same way that now and in the past people will lie to others and themselves to conform and not stand out. Question the judgement of a multi trillion neuron cybernetic brain? Try to form an independent thought in the face of such might?

Re: Ask HN: Viability of an anti-AI social movement?

#45

Post by version_five » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 2:41 AM UTC

chank wrote: post #40

version_five wrote: post #33

> I work professionally in the machine learning field I'm curious what you do in ML, because I also work professionally in the field, and see no relationship or even pathway between current ML research and practice and any sort of "AI" that would reduce or commoditize human intelligence. It's all just marketing hype. If we somehow get "I robot" style robots (the movie, not the book) that we're uncomfortable with, sur…

>"AI" that would reduce or commoditize human intelligence. Computer generated art (DALL-E~), fiction literature, music et al. It wouldn't really reduce human intelligence, but it will definitely commoditize creative crafts even further. Which I think is what the OP is mostly referring to.

I was in a gift shop recently that had what looked like oil paintings for $40-100, all imported from china or somewhere they were made cheaply, all of some uninspired beach or flowers or something. We also have muzak, we have online "content" that's really just some outsourced minimum to try and do seo. It's already all a commodity. Having ML that can streamlines that changes nothing. It's still not doing anything creative.

Even the Kermit pictures I joked about above were really "made" by the person who thought of the cool prompts for the model. It's that creativity that's the human part. ML can be an idiot savant, like a calculator can multiply numbers fast, but it doesn't "create" the ideas or inputs.

So it could change the economics of listicles and lower-end gift shop art, etc, from off-shore to computer generated. Maybe for some people that will be enough to call it a kind of industrial revolution. But there is no risk to creativity, anymore than a loom was a risk to creativity in fabrics.

Re: Ask HN: Viability of an anti-AI social movement?

#46

Post by docmechanic » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 2:46 AM UTC

version_five wrote: post #33

> I work professionally in the machine learning field I'm curious what you do in ML, because I also work professionally in the field, and see no relationship or even pathway between current ML research and practice and any sort of "AI" that would reduce or commoditize human intelligence. It's all just marketing hype. If we somehow get "I robot" style robots (the movie, not the book) that we're uncomfortable with, sur…

Same.

Re: Ask HN: Viability of an anti-AI social movement?

#47

Post by Bjorkbat » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 2:52 AM UTC

Maybe. One prediction I have is that AI will likely find its earliest widespread use in "content" generation, and this content will be geared towards clicks and engagement rather than creating something, well, creative.

I think eventually there will be a backlash against this content because of how much it stunts human potential. It keeps you hooked, but people will also deride it for being empty, for being exceptionally "mid". People will question why such content appeals to the widest possible demographic and come up with disturbing answers, like that the AIs unintentionally discovered a lot of unsettling psychological hooks. True or not, it'll freak people out.

I haven't even scratched the surface of my worries when it comes to the unintended consequences of content AI. I for one look forward to the day someone manages to create "the world's smartest racist".

Re: Ask HN: Viability of an anti-AI social movement?

#48

Post by NO-AI » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 2:52 AM UTC

abetusk wrote: post #34

In my opinion, yes, of course such a movement would find traction. We've seen similar movements at every major technological shift in human history. Some examples off the top of my head are certain types of Orthodox Jewish religions and the Amish. Even the term "sabotage" was from workers throwing their shoes ("sabos") into machines for fear of them losing their jobs [0]. There's been a steady stream of anarchists, l…

Today's transformer networks are the first hints of a technology that will replace humans completely for all purposes.

It's qualitatively different, like world-destroying atomic bombs versus the minor explosives that came before. This is not like a loom replacing hand-weaving. We're rapidly converging on a full replacement for the human mind.

These systems will not defeat you with guns like in Terminator. They will defeat you by commoditizing your mind and making your economic value zero.

Re: Ask HN: Viability of an anti-AI social movement?

#49

Post by vinaypai » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 2:53 AM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #30

vinaypai wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PS: They have also been saying “the last n-1 times we were wrong, but this time is different".

There is ample reason to believe this time is different, but almost certainly in ways that aren’t predicted right now.

Yup, just like all the other times.

Re: Ask HN: Viability of an anti-AI social movement?

#50

Post by Bjorkbat » Sat, Jun 04, 2022, 2:58 AM UTC

Bjorkbat wrote: post #47

Maybe. One prediction I have is that AI will likely find its earliest widespread use in "content" generation, and this content will be geared towards clicks and engagement rather than creating something, well, creative. I think eventually there will be a backlash against this content because of how much it stunts human potential. It keeps you hooked, but people will also deride it for being empty, for being exception…

To elaborate on what I mean. I think that someone will train an AI on racist literature, statistics, and rhetoric, and create an AI that is not only very racist, but very good at convincing other people to be racist. I think this will happen well before the government and institutions can preempt such a thing from happening.

This does bring up a bigger issue. What are the risks of creating AIs that could convince people on any subject one could think of?