The AI Threat to Open Societies • Hacker News Board

Re: The AI Threat to Open Societies

#151

Post by austincheney » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 5:45 AM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #120

austincheney wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tyrant is just a ruler. > The discussion is what category AInfalls under. A tool or utility. A hammer drives nails into wood enabling construction far superior to hands alone. A hammer can also crush skulls. A hammer is a utility. The determinate use is left to the user. The same objective reasoning applies to successful gun laws, which is often fatally missed by the gun lobby and advocates of gun restrictions.

Check any dictionary, except a 2000 year old Latin one. A tyrant is “a cruel and oppressive ruler” (Oxford American). Since you know that this is how the word has been commonly used for at least decades, and it is entirely clear from context that it was the intended meaning here, why do you feel it appropriate to waste everyone’s time with such a transparently bad-faith attempt to derail the discussion? Then, maybe,…

Because in the context of the conversation (about a tool) whether or not a leader is cruel the result is still the same. Objectively, mean people do not define a tool's presence.

Re: The AI Threat to Open Societies

#152

Post by gaius » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 7:24 AM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #149

chongli wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to use photovoltaic cells to harness solar power. It can be as simple as mounting a coil of tube on a flat board and painting the whole thing black, then pumping water through it. Backyard solar water heater made with cheap materials you can get at any hardware store.

Um, ya, I think you are missing the power disparity there.

Yeah, it’s like saying you can make a waterwheel therefore hydroelectric is democratised. Go tell that to the Hoover Dam!

Re: The AI Threat to Open Societies

#153

Post by ben_w » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 9:15 AM UTC

emiliobumachar wrote: post #36

ben_w wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting perspective, however I do not believe that the Internet is democratising. I regard democracy (and capitalism) as being an industrial-era approximation of solutions to the institution-alignment-problem (analogous to the AI alignment problem, but for governments and corporations). Both of these have their own failure modes; In the case of democracy, the failure mode is that people do not know objective t…

None of these effects is new. One could print anything on pamphlets, or shout it in the town square before literacy was widespread. When searching for that boots quote to put here, I found this reference with excellent 18th century quotes about the issue: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ There's the possibility that the internet has made it worse, but that's a theory I've yet to see evidence for. You c…

Indeed. My apologies for being unclear as you are not the only one to misunderstand me. Obviously the Internet didn’t result in the invention of propaganda, my point was merely that it makes propaganda much easier. It puts the tools of mass propaganda in reach of ordinary people. If you use “democratise” to mean “make equality available to all” (the meaning which I object to), then you could say that it democratises propaganda.

Re: The AI Threat to Open Societies

#154

Post by Amezarak » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 10:55 AM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #153

emiliobumachar wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these effects is new. One could print anything on pamphlets, or shout it in the town square before literacy was widespread. When searching for that boots quote to put here, I found this reference with excellent 18th century quotes about the issue: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ There's the possibility that the internet has made it worse, but that's a theory I've yet to see evidence for. You c…

Indeed. My apologies for being unclear as you are not the only one to misunderstand me. Obviously the Internet didn’t result in the invention of propaganda, my point was merely that it makes propaganda much easier. It puts the tools of mass propaganda in reach of ordinary people. If you use “democratise” to mean “make equality available to all” (the meaning which I object to), then you could say that it democratises…

> It puts the tools of mass propaganda in reach of ordinary people.

But this is exactly what we're saying is not new.

It only appears new to some because the 20th century was characterized by both expensive, government-licensed mass media (radio and television) and by the consolidation of the media industry. These factors had the effect of taking media access away from the common man and giving authority to a new set of gatekeepers, as well as (we've increasingly seen), the government, which the media depends on, and which is also much more easily able to control the output of the media than previously.

In the past, there was an incredible proliferation of newspapers, not by any means all or even mostly owned by the rich, and even the common man could afford to take out an ad or have some pamphlets printed. By doing this he could easily achieve obtain a regional and even a national audience.

And in pre-printing press societies, most non-state news traveled by word of mouth, which was free and could not be controlled by the state except with difficulty. You might object this wasn't mass media, but the objection is moot - one person speaking in the Assembly in Athens was sufficient to move the entire state.

It appears that Internet media is quickly moving toward the 20th century model - owned and controlled by a small contingent of very wealthy men. The difference is that yes, the content is produced by the people, rather than generated by an editor and his staff, but nevertheless, it's clear that with government and established media pressure, social media networks are all too happy to control what opinions are allowed on their platform.

Re: The AI Threat to Open Societies

#155

Post by 50656E6973 » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 6:11 PM UTC

scottlocklin wrote: post #122

50656E6973 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assurances mean nothing. The robots are already here, drones are already "self driving"

Total fantasy. As is the combination of words "AI" -what people really mean is "a data scientist coded up a classifier."

Wrong

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Auto...

Re: The AI Threat to Open Societies

#156

Post by softawre » Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

est31 wrote: post #16

Animats wrote: post #4

AI is only in a supporting role here. It's massive data collection and storage at low cost that's the problem. Machine learning just helps to digest the data. Tech has solved the problem of previous attempts at Big Brother - you just couldn't afford enough watchers to watch everybody all the time. Now, you can. It's even profitable.

And tech will also solve the power problem of autocratic regimes. Right now, a dictator can't control every single individual in the country on their own. They need police that can search your apt at 5am because you made a blog post critical of the government. They need lawyers to convict you, prison guards, etc. In such regimes, the dictator still has to put people into places of power so that the will of the dictat…

Comments like this are why I spend my lunch on HN. Thanks!

Re: The AI Threat to Open Societies

#157

Post by speedplane » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 6:22 AM UTC

pimmen wrote: post #116

speedplane wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this social credit or indirect influence is perfectly fair, it's not really a problem. However, it's very likely it will be unfair to some, and create tension and unrest that will lead to the same problems we have without AI.

I would argue it's unrealistic to make such a system that would be fair in the eyes of all coming generations. Imagine they implemented a social credit system in the Middle Ages and added or deducted points based on whether or not you followed the laws and norms of that era.

> I would argue it's unrealistic to make such a system that would be fair in the eyes of all coming generations. Imagine they implemented a social credit system in the Middle Ages and added or deducted points based on whether or not you followed the laws and norms of that era.

The middle ages basically had exactly that system, but the enlightenment still occurred.