Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Soviets history is not so simple. ;)
The Soviets aren't the only country that tried that. It's never worked out anywhere it was tried.
It seems to have worked out alright for the French.
AI optimism is a class privilege
101–110 of 145 posts
Re: AI optimism is a class privilege
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Soviets aren't the only country that tried that. It's never worked out anywhere it was tried.
It seems to have worked out alright for the French.
It worked out very badly for them. See "Reign of Terror". The Revolution ended when Napoleon declared himself a hereditary monarch. Things went full circle.
Re: AI optimism is a class privilege
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Soviets aren't the only country that tried that. It's never worked out anywhere it was tried.
I’m not arguing in favor of it, I’m just aware of how the world works. You also seem to have forgotten France among other places where the history wasn’t as grim as Russia. Frankly nothing Russia has ever done seems to make their lot better.
You're overlooking the Reign of Terror.
Consider Pol Pot (Cambodia). How'd that work out? Cuba? How'd that go? Venezuela, anyone?
For a counter-example, the US. The greatest rise in the standard of living in history, with free markets where paupers could get rich.
Re: AI optimism is a class privilege
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
The set of people who believe the automobile (or the Internet) are net negatives taken as a whole for society is extremely small, for good reason
Let's refine terms - internal combustion engine driven automobiles have lead to lead poisoning, air pollution, and CO2 emissions.
I would like to get actual numbers.
1. how many people died because of lead poisoning, air pollution?
2. how many people were saved and had qualitatively better lives because of automobiles?
Re: AI optimism is a class privilege
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
The automobile on its own was actually far less polluting than the horse wrt. air quality. It's just that there's a whole lot more of the former than there ever was of the latter. Even wrt. climate change, it turns out that horses produce methane emissions which are far worse for the climate than carbon dioxide.
You are immensely discounting induced demand though.
induced demand is a good thing - it means there is more utility going around.
Re: AI optimism is a class privilege
#106India and Africa are significantly more optimistic about AI than US and EU There exists great promise in AI to be an equalizing force, if implemented well The future is yet to be written
How is it an equalising force if the commodity is sold at "market value"? This will just lead to more wealth concentration, no?
you are conflating equity and equality. its equalising in the sense that it democratises access to data, knowledge. but that does not mean it will end up with everyone being equal in terms of wealth.
Re: AI optimism is a class privilege
#107Author certainly has a point. The central idea is (IMO) best expressed in this quote: > to focus on its [i.e., AI's] benefits to you, you’re forced to ignore its costs to others.
I'm not sure that's true. Like I find the Google AI handy but that doesn't mean I have to ignore that others may be annoyed by it.
Re: AI optimism is a class privilege
#108The author perhaps pessimistically seems to think AI will benefit some privileged groups and hurt others but it could turn out to be something like clean water and sanitation that benefits almost everyone. I don't think it has to be bad.
Re: AI optimism is a class privilege
#109I disagree with most of this article. Disclaimer: I'm a junior engineer and I believe both that: 1. AI is going to take my job, 2. AI is going to do incredible good for the world. I don't see how these are distinct. It's a technology shift, of course it's going to make certain jobs obsolete - that's how technology shifts work. I'm not going to go through every quote I disagree with, but unlike some AI negativity disc…
Average labour hours in a year dramatically increased with the Industrial Revolution. They would only decrease much later, after a long period of social conflict, economic growth, and technological progress. During the early phase of the Industrial Revolution (roughly 1760–1850): Agricultural workers who once labored seasonally were pushed into factory schedules of 12–16 hours per day, 6 days per week. Annual labor h…
I'm not sure what your comment is trying to say.
>They would only decrease much later, after a long period of social conflict, economic growth, and technological progress.
The technological process mentioned here as Industrial Revolution, was the necessary step. It was not primarily social conflicts.
The above poster is making exactly the same point.
You are right that there was an aberration in the middle where people worked way more hours but this was when things were consolidating.
But your post implies that the preference of people was to work less hours as opposed to work more hours and earn more money, which is not the case.
Re: AI optimism is a class privilege
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems like the author hasn't really used the latest models The author addresses this point. > While I’m sure the technology and its costs will continue to improve, it’s hard to see how that would mitigate most of these harms. Many would just as likely be intensified by greater speed, efficiency, and affordability. > This sort of technology distributes instability to the many at the bottom, while consolidating be…
The world changes, you either adapt or not. People who saw this coming could have positioned themselves with plan a b/c. No different from when other societal changing technologies arrived in the past. What does crying about it in blog posts achieve.
[flagged]