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

I refused to train the AI that could replace me

restofworld.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 124 posts

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#31

Post by qsera »

unleashhale wrote: post #26
eru wrote: post #15

People have objected to training their replacements since forever. Younger people, foreigners, now machines. What else is new? I don't think you are under any moral or ethical obligation to train your replacement. But I don't think the decision makes much of a difference one way or another in the grand scheme of things. > You may ask: Why would anyone agree to train an AI model in the very skills they took years to a…

Just like how the car gave us back so many more hours to spend actually living instead of working. And the washing machine. And the computer. And the Internet.

>actually living...

Watching TV...Or consuming social media..

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#33

Post by vrganj »

eru wrote: post #15

People have objected to training their replacements since forever. Younger people, foreigners, now machines. What else is new? I don't think you are under any moral or ethical obligation to train your replacement. But I don't think the decision makes much of a difference one way or another in the grand scheme of things. > You may ask: Why would anyone agree to train an AI model in the very skills they took years to a…

> If you can save humanity from having to spend years acquiring these skills and judgements, they can do something else with their lives.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. Not until we replace our entire socioeconomic system. As-is, the only reason most people can extract an existence from capital is capital's dependence on labor.

Break that dependence and the entire thing breaks, capital becomes a self-sustaining flywheel towards feudalism and everyone who currently depends on labor for their survival loses the foundation of their existence.

Only once we fundamentally change ownership structures can we work towards your vision. Until then, it is a false piper to dystopia.

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#34

Post by jojobas »

eru wrote: post #30
discreteevent wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they can do something else with their lives. Let them eat cake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake That phrase was born as a straw man.

The argument against "they can do something else with their lives" is not a strawman though.

In a hypothetical end state where the people who own fully-automated production of everything, and need maybe few millions employed to support and guard that production, the "freed" people are not going to do something better with their lives.

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#35

Post by gmueckl »

eru wrote: post #18
gmueckl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a very strong take on the situation, more for discussion than a true representation of my own beliefs: The ML models will be trained as long as we as the human society in charge allow them to be trained. Progress only happens if society allows it to happen. The commercial AI proponents are trying to do an end-run around societal adjustments, forcing change at a speed that is to fast for proper responses. It co…

> We, collectively, need to decide where to draw the lines on this technology and we need to decide fast. I hope you, collectively, don't start deciding what deodorants I can wear. (Like Bernie Sanders infamously brought up.) Or what toys my daughter can play with. (As Donald Trump wanted.)

Society abides by a lot of rules that you also learned to follow, mostly while you were raised. Why else would you even wear a deodorant?

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#36

Post by vrganj »

eru wrote: post #29
thin_carapace wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to attack your good faith in humanity, so I will ask another way - if a system was reliant on workers, what reason would there be for those workers to exist , after their work became automated?

Workers are humans. Humans don't need any system's permission or reasoning to exist. If you've ever been laid off or fired, you might have noticed that you don't cease to exist when your contract ends.

You do cease to exist once you don't get access to food, water or health care long enough.

Think just a little past the most direct consequence - let me rephrase GP's question: What reason would the ownership class have to provide these necessities to workers when they no longer require their work?

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#37

Post by eru »

gmueckl wrote: post #35
eru wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We, collectively, need to decide where to draw the lines on this technology and we need to decide fast. I hope you, collectively, don't start deciding what deodorants I can wear. (Like Bernie Sanders infamously brought up.) Or what toys my daughter can play with. (As Donald Trump wanted.)

Society abides by a lot of rules that you also learned to follow, mostly while you were raised. Why else would you even wear a deodorant?

I wear deodorant to get along with the humans around me. Concrete folks I can point to (even if I don't necessarily know the guy next to me on the train by name nor will see him again).

No nebulous society involved that makes collective decisions in the abstract.

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#38

Post by OKRainbowKid »

eru wrote: post #29
thin_carapace wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to attack your good faith in humanity, so I will ask another way - if a system was reliant on workers, what reason would there be for those workers to exist , after their work became automated?

Workers are humans. Humans don't need any system's permission or reasoning to exist. If you've ever been laid off or fired, you might have noticed that you don't cease to exist when your contract ends.

You may however notice that your existence might be cut short if you don't have access to food, shelter, medical treatments, because "the system" eventually has no incentive to provide for you anymore, because your labor is now worthless to capital.

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#39

Post by thin_carapace »

eru wrote: post #29
thin_carapace wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to attack your good faith in humanity, so I will ask another way - if a system was reliant on workers, what reason would there be for those workers to exist , after their work became automated?

Workers are humans. Humans don't need any system's permission or reasoning to exist. If you've ever been laid off or fired, you might have noticed that you don't cease to exist when your contract ends.

well i brought up the system for a reason, human existence is relative to the system in which humans exist. are there any examples of humans being systematically supported when their class of labor ceased to exist on a widespread scale? if so, did those supportive aspects spontaneously manifest? all in all, would such insights apply to a more widespread scenario, where the affected labor classes are all those involving human computer interaction?

Re: I refused to train the AI that could replace me

#40

Post by gmueckl »

fleventynine wrote: post #17
gmueckl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a very strong take on the situation, more for discussion than a true representation of my own beliefs: The ML models will be trained as long as we as the human society in charge allow them to be trained. Progress only happens if society allows it to happen. The commercial AI proponents are trying to do an end-run around societal adjustments, forcing change at a speed that is to fast for proper responses. It co…

I don't think society has enough power to control what billionaires spend their money on. The promise of AI is such an attractive nuisance for power seekers that trying to crack down on it will just force it underground, where it will be developed with even less care and oversight than it is now. Our institutions aren't even able to control what dirt-poor pirates do on hardware they own. How in the heck are they goin…

Advancing the state of the art takes so many resources that it can't happen underground, at least for now. Slap enough controls on the means and the handbrakes are on. So your doomsday scenario could be preventable. The crux is that enough people need to come out in favor to put constraints in place. It's not impossible, but public opinions form slowly.
Post reply on HN