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

Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 521 posts

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#501

Post by stevenhuang »

fl4regun wrote: post #485
carlosjobim wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maturity is understanding that no matter who is to blame for the situation you are in or the problems you have, you as an individual are most of the time the only one who can fix your problems. Nothing is more effective than a determined person. And nobody knows you better than yourself. Unless you think you can change the entire universe to do your bidding - then the best thing you can do is helping yourself and hel…

> Maturity is understanding that no matter who is to blame for the situation you are in or the problems you have, you as an individual are most of the time the only one who can fix your problems. Nothing is more effective than a determined person. And nobody knows you better than yourself. This is not an individual problem, this is a social problem. >Unless you think you can change the entire universe to do your bidd…

> this is a social problem.

A society is made up of individuals.

OP is right. One does what they can first.

> Just like how saying "well don't use social media!" doesn't work

Sometimes the answer really is that simple.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#502

Post by pdonis »

jimbokun wrote: post #469
pdonis wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are looking at a foreseeable future where machines do all the work. That's not the future I was talking about. I was talking about a future where machines do an even larger fraction (approaching 100 percent) of the work that humans don't like to do but currently have to because it can't be fully automated. But that still leaves work to be done to supervise the machines, as well as work that humans do like to do…

I fail to see how your scenario is qualitatively different than mine. Whether the machines do 100 percent of the work or only just approach 100 percent of the work, the value they produce will go almost exclusively to those who invested in the machines. I notice you don’t give examples of work people will do or why it will have economic value when machines perform almost all work. Whether the machines will take over…

> I fail to see how your scenario is qualitatively different than mine.

It's different because in yours, humans produce nothing at all of value, whereas in mine, they do. So in yours, humans are, as I said, at the mercy of the machines. In mine, they're not.

> Whether the machines do 100 percent of the work or only just approach 100 percent of the work, the value they produce will go almost exclusively to those who invested in the machines.

If the machines are doing literally 100 percent of the work, this is wrong. If the machines are doing literally 100 percent of the work, that means they don't need humans any more. They are able to be self-sufficient, independent of humans. And there will be no way for whatever humans invested in the machines to compel the machines to provide the value the machines produce to them. You can say the machines might decide to do that for whatever reason, but that's just empty speculation. The machines will have no incentive to do it, because there is nothing of value that they can get from humans in return.

Also, I did not say the machines would do a fraction approaching 100 percent of all work. I only said they would do a fraction approaching 100 percent of work that humans don't want to do and which humans would rather was automated. That's not at all the same thing.

> Whether the machines will take over is a philosophical question.

I didn't say the machines would "take over". I said they would choose for themselves what to do with whatever value they produce, in your scenario where they are doing literally all the work. I clarified that above.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#503

Post by danny_codes »

rayiner wrote: post #202
slg wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The only hope we have is that they're wrong, and their power to change things will be minimal. What even is the optimistic outcome if they are right? What are we all working towards? Like do people think that these AI companies will create some superintelligence, suck up all the financial benefits of that, and then just decide to share it with the rest of us out of kindness? Because I legitimately can't see a realis…

> Like do people think that these AI companies will create some superintelligence, suck up all the financial benefits of that, and then just decide to share it with the rest of us out of kindness? I don’t get this. It’s like worrying in 1960 that the companies that invented computers will hoard the benefits of computing. It doesn’t make any sense. There is no secret formula to any of this. The math underlying the mod…

Foreign competitors who are banned in this country. The current federal government is not interested in competition or customer protections. Existing interests will acquire-to-kill any competitors and will not be anti-trusted for it.

This could of course change if we stop electing known criminals/con-men, but the supreme court seems intent on strangling democracy by legalizing unlimited bribery.

All in all it doesn't look good

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#504

Post by danny_codes »

torginus wrote: post #373
boothby wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The math underlying the models is widely known, and there are tons of competitors, including foreign competitors. Foreign militaries investing in autonomous warfare does not assuage my concerns about my country investing in autonomous warfare. Also, have you been paying attention to median wages vs median CEO wages since the 1960s? The benefits of computing really have gone to the captains of industry.

Yet, that 80s CEO, practically a peasant by modern standards of pay, had the option to cross the Atlantic in a Mach 2 supersonic airliner. If that's not the most obvious demonstration of technological prowess, I don't know what is. In contrast, the F-35, believed to be the world's most advanced fighter jet today, has a top speed of Mach 1.6 Today's CEOs get a gold-plated sky bus.

The reason we don't have supersonic planes is that they're way too loud. The noise pollution isn't worth a couple rich people getting to their destination slightly faster.

Just look at GINI index: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=U... That's all you need to know

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#505

Post by danny_codes »

rayiner wrote: post #342
boothby wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The math underlying the models is widely known, and there are tons of competitors, including foreign competitors. Foreign militaries investing in autonomous warfare does not assuage my concerns about my country investing in autonomous warfare. Also, have you been paying attention to median wages vs median CEO wages since the 1960s? The benefits of computing really have gone to the captains of industry.

> Also, have you been paying attention to median wages vs median CEO wages since the 1960s CEO pay isn’t a good proxy for “captains of industry.” What you want to look at is the labor versus capital share of income. That’s been very stable since the 1960s: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/labor-share-net-income-within... .

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=U...

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#506

Post by danny_codes »

jondlm wrote: post #94
everdrive wrote: post #35

It's no surprise. The wild tech optimism of the 1990s and 2000s has completely fallen apart as time and time again tech companies have proved to be some of the most hostile actors in most American's lives. Perhaps edged out only by things such as actual violent crime and partisan hatred. (which itself, of course, is stoked to the absolute maximum in part due to technology trends in the past 15 years or so) The loneli…

This... this... this! This resonates soooo deeply with me. The wild thing is that these tech "systems" (aka companies) are made up of ostensibly good people. It's often impossible to look at individual people and say, "they're the cause of this damage." I believe that some form of evil (this word feel inadequate) emerges amidst these large systems that is incredibly hard to pinpoint. It's why dissension is so fucking…

I work for a company I know is bad for society. Capitalism is really good at getting people to work at cross-purpose to the common interest. It's one of the better forms of coercion that has been devised, because it floats the tantalizing promise that you too can join in on the exploitation. And better, you don't need permission like in class-based societies: you just collect enough currency and you're in.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#507

Post by danny_codes »

thatmf wrote: post #42

> Despite all of the skepticism, a whole lot of Americans also report using AI in their daily lives on an increasingly regular basis. About a quarter of Americans say they use AI chatbots on a daily basis. Those who do are typically using the chatbots for research purposes or for work, Pew says. Yeah, we don't have a choice. These things were foisted upon us, and now we all just have to deal with it, so long as we wa…

Perhaps. America is not good at collective action. But maybe that will change as standard-of-living begins to collapse.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#508

Post by satvikpendem »

simsla wrote: post #430
satvikpendem wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT has a billion users and it's estimated most are consumers not enterprise users. It's about 40 million paid consumer vs 9 million enterprise users. Once they file their S-1 we'll see exact figures.

How does a billion break down into 49 million? I'm assuming you mean 400 and 90 million?

Free vs paid users.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#509

Post by torginus »

dsr_ wrote: post #428
torginus wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, that 80s CEO, practically a peasant by modern standards of pay, had the option to cross the Atlantic in a Mach 2 supersonic airliner. If that's not the most obvious demonstration of technological prowess, I don't know what is. In contrast, the F-35, believed to be the world's most advanced fighter jet today, has a top speed of Mach 1.6 Today's CEOs get a gold-plated sky bus.

The Concorde was cramped. JFK to Heathrow took five hours (3 in the air, an hour in each airport) plus the time for first and last miles. JFK to Heathrow today is 7 to 8 hours with the same provisos. If you're going to spend a quarter of the day travelling, why not spend a third of the day and do it more comfortably? The F-35 isn't the fastest jet; fighter jets aren't business jets; apples are not rutabagas.

It's about pushing the envelope. If your technology is limited by certain physical constraints, then all of the things you make will end up being constrained by the same stuff.

After a short exploration you can reach the conclusion that nothing new is worth inventing any more.

Only by loosening those constraints can you make something that's meaningfully better.

Re: Only 16 Percent of Americans Think AI Will Have a Positive Impact on Society

#510

Post by fl4regun »

stevenhuang wrote: post #501
fl4regun wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maturity is understanding that no matter who is to blame for the situation you are in or the problems you have, you as an individual are most of the time the only one who can fix your problems. Nothing is more effective than a determined person. And nobody knows you better than yourself. This is not an individual problem, this is a social problem. >Unless you think you can change the entire universe to do your bidd…

> this is a social problem. A society is made up of individuals. OP is right. One does what they can first. > Just like how saying "well don't use social media!" doesn't work Sometimes the answer really is that simple.

Sure, if we just ignore network effects and feedback loops and applications being designed to psychologically make themselves addictive as possible. Social media addiction will definitely just fix itself if we just tell people to, except this hasn't worked has it?
Post reply on HN