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

The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 185 posts

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#161

Post by clapthewind »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #152

I find the backlash kind of saddening. As an engineer, as most of you are, I am as blown away by the achievement that is the LLM in a way not too dissimilar to how I feel about the Apollo Moon program. And furthermore, I have found it wildly useful for me (if used within contexts that play to its strengths). But I think that kind of gets to the point perhaps of the schism. I like the tech and like using it. I enjoy "…

It sounds like you're championing labor using ai. But capital will also use it and leverage it more.

There's no mechanism for only labor to exploit a technology, apart from common ownership at a world level. Achieving this is left as an exercise to the ambitious.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#162

Post by praptak »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #152

I find the backlash kind of saddening. As an engineer, as most of you are, I am as blown away by the achievement that is the LLM in a way not too dissimilar to how I feel about the Apollo Moon program. And furthermore, I have found it wildly useful for me (if used within contexts that play to its strengths). But I think that kind of gets to the point perhaps of the schism. I like the tech and like using it. I enjoy "…

"In absolutely no way am I scheming on how I might leverage it to shut down whole industries"

I don't think even the ultra rich who own the technology are directly scheming to do that. But they do accept it as a side effect of them getting more money and power.

Yes, the technology is a tool, it's an impressive tool but we cannot ignore who wields it and what they incentives are.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#163

Post by Gud »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #154
cjbgkagh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep warning people that promising UBI and not delivering UBI both serve the same end, undermining opposition. By the time you find out that their promises of UBI are empty it’s too late to do anything about it.

I don't know. A nationwide (global?) promise of UBI that just evaporates is likely to bring on a French Revolution kind of moment.

The difference between then and now is that the have nots don’t have much leverage.

At least during the French Revolution, they had strength in numbers.

The people who control the capital are building autonomous armament to protect themselves against both foreign and domestic enemies.

If you sell labour for money, you should be worried.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#164

Post by Gud »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #159
JKCalhoun wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. A nationwide (global?) promise of UBI that just evaporates is likely to bring on a French Revolution kind of moment.

Imagine a split between two factions, one that wants UBI and one that doesn't. The most talented people will go to the faction that doesn't offer/impose UBI. That's why UBI is impossible, the incentive to defect is immense.

What makes you think that?

Why would “the most talented” necessarily side with the oppressors?

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#165

Post by dehrmann »

xracy wrote: post #158
dehrmann wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The California Billionaire Tax is a bad idea. It's not that wealth taxes can't work (most of the US taxes property just fine), it's that taxes need to be fair and predictable. The phase-in is too narrow and its implementation is too arbitrary. Why $1B? Why $5%? Why won't CA voters hit up billionaires again?

I feel like every opposition I read to wealth taxes is someone saying that we shouldn't do it, because it won't be perfect. Without offering an alternative to the status quo, which is nothing. We can iterate on taxes if they're ineffective, but it's unforgivable to not try and do something in the face of so much inequality.

I sort of implied that it needs to be predicable (annual) and less arbitrary (bracketed). A one-off tax sends the message that you can be taxed whenever and for whatever. Unpredictable policy sends a message that somewhere isn't a stable place to live or do business.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#166

Post by tim333 »

thomascgalvin wrote: post #5

People like Altman and Musk are saying that Universal Basic Income will be necessary once AI has fully automated away most jobs, but at the same time they aggressively fight against any kind of tax policy that would allow UBI to function. I am convinced that their talk of UBI is just handwaving; they're trying to convince us that there will be a solution to the destruction of the economy as we know it, so that we'll…

The majority of people agree that taxes to pay for schools, hospitals, roads and the like are a good idea. The majority of people also don't want to pay more tax personally. I don't think there's any great contradiction there.

Taxing the ten people won't happen because they choose it. It may happen because the majority of the population will vote in a government that does that.

Most of the changes - AI getting better, changes to the tax and economic system, are kind of inevitable regardless of Musk, Altman or whatever other figureheads get involved. Human level AI was predicted perhaps most famously by Turing who thought it might take 50 years but it's actually been more like 75. Tax revenue as a % of gdp has gone in the UK from about 10% in 1900 to near 45% now and those trends will probably also continue. (tax graph https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Dilnot/publicati...)

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#167

Post by tim333 »

cjs_ac wrote: post #22

> Already, as many as a quarter of Americans seem accepting of violence as a tool for achieving political change. I'm surprised it's only a quarter: violence as a tool for achieving political change is the entire point of the right to bear arms. EDIT: I'm not arguing for or against political violence, just noting an apparent inconsistency between Americans' views and one of the documents that they talk about as thoug…

The right to bear arms is more of a last resort against tyrants and invaders. You don't want to be shooting people for everyday politics.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#168

Post by zombot »

chezelenkoooo wrote: post #19
otikik wrote: post #11

My main problem is this: - If (big If) AI actually replaces workers, then we have a problem, because lots of folk lost their jobs - If AI doesn't replace workers, then we have a recession, because a lot of the US economy now sits on top of corporations betting on it. And this will tank the economy and lots of folk will lose their jobs It feels that the only path forward is a narrow one where AI removes some jobs , bu…

I don't think it an either / or. The current AI models, as they are, improve productivity quite a bit. They're just super expensive but the expense is being subsidized so it appears reasonable. An alternative possibility is that the models become much cheaper and their use becomes more ubiquitous which would be helpful.

You're ignoring historical experience. The owners of the means of production have perfected their ability to nab all the upsides of productivity gains, while the workers' best hope is wage stagnation. Combined with the promise of "we'll put everyone out of work" it's just mass poverty and death from hunger and exposure. And if it doesn't pan out, then it's still very few companies that will own the remaining market of LLM use. That's a new quality we haven't seen before, where both success and failure will have catastrophic consequences.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#169

Post by zombot »

pugworthy wrote: post #75
bcjdjsndon wrote: post #2

> They want to replace workers A simple question none of the ai-doomsayers can answer... who buys anything when nobody has a job cos robots do everything?

I saw a talk by Brian Merchant ( https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/ ) a while back where he talked a lot about the Luddites and their revolts against automation. He's definitely not a fan of AI, but it was very interesting to hear the comparisons of AI resistance now to Luddite resistance to automation in the 1800's. There was unfortunately no Q&A in the lecture, as probably the one question I would have asked him wa…

There's one important difference: Automation worked and was affordable. Whether slop generation by LLMs is a useful instance of automation and how any productivity achieved stacks up against real, non-subsidized costs is currently a matter of (highly propagandized) opinion at best.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#170

Post by zombot »

general1465 wrote: post #98
gypsy_boots wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take any econ 101 course, and you'll realize that this isn't a factor in the capitalist system. Capitalism is simply concerned with maximizing profit, and in this case, returning shareholder value. It's just simply not in the purview of the system to think about what happens when you completely get rid of your labor force. Envisioned another way, the future of labor might look the way it did for laborers over 100 yea…

No wages -> Nobody buys stuff and services -> Companies are going bankrupt -> No taxable income from consumers nor companies -> States are going bankrupt. You can either go through UBI taxing automated work by 90%+ and pretend that capitalism is still a thing, or just nationalize everything and go with communism. Henry Ford understood this problem with his Model T and realized that if he wants to sell it, he also nee…

> States are going bankrupt.

States (or their rule-of-the-strongest successors) always have means to not go bankrupt. They will simply pillage the survivors.

Post reply on HN