Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Raising Children on the Eve of AI

juliawise.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 237 posts

Re: Raising Children on the Eve of AI

#81

Post by throwanem »

Vecr wrote: post #75
throwanem wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm thinking utilitarianism. I appreciate that the standard definition includes a term about "for the greatest number". But you're still defining an ethical utility function which you then seek to maximize. That your utility function may be off model from the most doctrinaire possible interpretation of the theory does not seem to me the same as saying this is not an example of the theory. The same could be said o…

> Well, yeah, that's the fundamental failure of utilitarianism: it's so abstract as to say nothing meaningful, because it explicitly delegates the entire definition of what actually is ethical to the utility function, and nothing past that is distinct from any other ethical theory. I think it's honest, as it really forces you to make a distinction between good (what should be) and real (what is). "Should" goes into t…

Oh, I see. If you click the timestamp on a comment, that view always has the reply form. Only in the thread view is the reply link hidden for the first few minutes after a comment is posted.

I'm familiar with Hume. The is-ought distinction has value, but is orthogonal to utilitarianism, if not explicitly opposed.

Re: Raising Children on the Eve of AI

#82

Post by larodi »

Barrin92 wrote: post #76

It's always astonishing to me when people talk about what they want their children to be or do and the answer is a list of soft skills. The Protestant work ethic really has done a number on some people. I always thought the answer is simple (though not easy), I want my kids to be healthy, honest, loyal and kind, what they do from 8am to 4pm is for them to figure out, but it's not that important.

Missing Ref.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the...

Re: Raising Children on the Eve of AI

#83

Post by threedark »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #29
rbanffy wrote: post #3

One bit of warning: we tend to overestimate the short term impact of new tools while underestimating their long term ones. It’s likely our kids will have recognisable professions with better phones than not. AI will be there assisting us in increasingly sophisticated ways, acting as intelligent agents and maybe even impersonating us at simple interactions. Value and supply chains change slowly and those are the thing…

This sounds humble, but it's a prediction that actually contains a lot of confidence about where the future will go.

Some quirk of psychology. People can't even consider a dooms day scenario.

The turing test was a AI benchmark that everyone universally agreed upon. When LLMs blew past that benchmark everyone moved the goal posts and started acting as if it was obvious that the turing test is a bad test.

Beating the turing test was a paradigm shift and we didn't even notice. Sure move the goal posts if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that something fundamental about tech has changed.

It's possible we hit a paradigm shift that is foreshadowing a very very unknown future and many people may be to delusional to face it.

Re: Raising Children on the Eve of AI

#84

Post by j4yav »

keiferski wrote: post #67
j4yav wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the vast majority of people watch a human YouTuber or other kind of charisma-based influencer when they can choose from infinite custom generated ones that always provide exactly the content they want at any time, look and act just like they want them to, and listen to feedback perfectly, and interact with them on a one on one basis?

For the same reason people line up to get popular fashionable products that look the same as everyone else, when they could have an infinitely customized one for far less. The “customization” narrative is far too based on assumptions of individualism, and doesn’t factor in sociability at all.

The potential difference I think is that you will be able to replace your social circle with people who behave to your preference. Advertising will be per person, rather than per segment, so that will fade as a unifying factor. I think once parents start putting AR goggles on their kids all bets are off about how social relationships with humans in your presence have some kind of primacy will fade away. That said, I do hope you’re right.

Re: Raising Children on the Eve of AI

#85

Post by threedark »

Brajeshwar wrote: post #35
rbanffy wrote: post #3

One bit of warning: we tend to overestimate the short term impact of new tools while underestimating their long term ones. It’s likely our kids will have recognisable professions with better phones than not. AI will be there assisting us in increasingly sophisticated ways, acting as intelligent agents and maybe even impersonating us at simple interactions. Value and supply chains change slowly and those are the thing…

I will always remember Amara's Law, “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.” Having been in the tech industry for 20+ years taught me a lot about the long-term impact. PS. My daughter's name is Amara. :-)

A quotation isn't evidence for anything. Quotations are illusions and calling a quotation a "law" serves as deception. How do we even know what that quotation said is true? Is there data backing it up? Doubt it.

20+ years of experience is a lot. But if we crossed a line here, if LLMs are truly a paradigm shift then there will be fundamental changes to society that will last centuries. This renders your 20 years of experience miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

We need to look at things realistically, not rely on quotations and anecdotal experience to predict the future.

I'm not claiming doomsday will occur. We don't know what will happen, my main problem is excessively positive outlooks that are borderline delusional. Your daughter, if she's a child, may have a much harder time in life in the future due to AI, and that is nowhere near an unrealistic statement.

Re: Raising Children on the Eve of AI

#86

Post by Vecr »

throwanem wrote: post #81
Vecr wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, yeah, that's the fundamental failure of utilitarianism: it's so abstract as to say nothing meaningful, because it explicitly delegates the entire definition of what actually is ethical to the utility function, and nothing past that is distinct from any other ethical theory. I think it's honest, as it really forces you to make a distinction between good (what should be) and real (what is). "Should" goes into t…

Oh, I see. If you click the timestamp on a comment, that view always has the reply form. Only in the thread view is the reply link hidden for the first few minutes after a comment is posted. I'm familiar with Hume. The is-ought distinction has value, but is orthogonal to utilitarianism, if not explicitly opposed.

Well, it's better than EA or e/acc thinking they are objectively correct for some reason. More with e/acc I suppose, why would "max entropy" be a worthy utility function unless you confuse is and ought?

Re: Raising Children on the Eve of AI

#87

Post by RobinL »

tayo42 wrote: post #66
RobinL wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is subjective. I get a sense of purpose from my job. I don't feel like 'just' a labourer, I feel like by working I'm contributing to society and helping others. I don't want infinite leisure, I want to feel useful. A good day's work is very satisfying. But at the point machines can do my job better than I can, it might be difficult to feel useful.

What happens to your purpose when you get fired, laid off, company goes out of business? I would be really surprised if there was anything more then a fringe minority that found a sense of purpose from their job.

For me, it's about having a job I enjoy and feel like I'm good at. Which would apply to most of the jobs I've done. So in those circumstances I'd just get a new job, there are lots of roles and industries that interest me.

The problem would occur if I was unemployed and unemployable because my skills (or any new skills I could conceivably learn) were no longer valuable.

Re: Raising Children on the Eve of AI

#88

Post by bo1024 »

keiferski wrote: post #44
bo1024 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTuber is a lottery-ticket profession. It's a winner-take-all, heavy-tailed distribution. It doesn't make sense to tell a whole population to buy lottery tickets. For kids, it's a modern equivalent of "I want to be in the NBA", "I want to be an astronaut".

You are missing the point I’m making. Everyone won’t be a YouTuber. But the successful people will cultivate skills that are similar to those needed by successful YouTubers. Being an anonymous worker with anonymous output means you can be easily replaced.

All of the examples you gave are lottery-ticket professions, though. And even if a large number of people could be successful entertainers, I'm not even sure about the premise. AI-generated media could compete with YouTubers very soon. AI will take a long, long time to replace garbagemen.

Re: Raising Children on the Eve of AI

#89

Post by throwanem »

Vecr wrote: post #86
throwanem wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see. If you click the timestamp on a comment, that view always has the reply form. Only in the thread view is the reply link hidden for the first few minutes after a comment is posted. I'm familiar with Hume. The is-ought distinction has value, but is orthogonal to utilitarianism, if not explicitly opposed.

Well, it's better than EA or e/acc thinking they are objectively correct for some reason. More with e/acc I suppose, why would "max entropy" be a worthy utility function unless you confuse is and ought?

Yeah, that's pretty much my point. Aside from my not sharing their ethical bankruptcy, I also don't special-case my analysis the way they like to do; that they can hew so closely to utilitarian precepts and still fail so signally demonstrates that the bankruptcy is no special feature of their variant, but a trait of the theory overall, always latent if not always expressed.

Re: Raising Children on the Eve of AI

#90

Post by j7ake »

safety1st wrote: post #58
inference-lord wrote: post #12

I became a parent about a year ago, completely unprepared for this future. My Son was born around the time ChatGPT-4 was released and I remember all the Geoffrey Hinton interviews which were really apocalyptic sounding, he is has a kind of kookie mad scientist vibe about him too. I remember thinking, like what the fuck just happened? Like I just woke up in a movie. I've learned to accept the situation, and realize th…

I'm not going to worry too much about my career being snuffed out by AI until AI actually exists. Right now we have LLMs and they're a very far cry from any form of AI that could replace a software engineer wholesale. In my little corner of the software engineering universe I have not seen any credible hiring manager say they were going to fire developers and replace them with LLMs (I have seen this threat from one o…

LLMs do not need to replace a software engineer wholesale for engineers to be worried.

Even if half of the junior software engineering positions become obsolete because of LLMs, it’s already a huge issue for the entire profession.

Of course if you’re in the top of your profession, there’s nothing to worry. But on aggregate one can expect deteriorating conditions. Mostly this will disproportionately affect juniors.

Post reply on HN