171–180 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize luddites were people made unemployable and impoverished by new technology? Calling them luddites just proves their point.
They weren't made unemployable nor impoverished. Many migrated to the cities and worked in the factories. Their complaints were more about the move from being an artisan to being manual labor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody pays the price for AI, but relatively few benefit. Power is more expensive because data centres are using so much of it. Climate change is a tougher problem to solve because we're trying to reduce emissions while the energy requirements of big AI companies is eclipsing that of some nations . GHG emissions are going up when they need to go down. Computer hardware prices are through the roof. Fresh graduates,…
> energy requirements of big AI companies is eclipsing that of some nations I've heard so many different takes on this. Where did you get this information?
If AI were a country, it'd be 12th place in the world for energy consumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
It's gone up considerably since last time I looked. Jeez.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that I was not speaking on the guilt or innocence of any specific person, just pointing out that when it comes to committing sexual violence the incentives to make accusations don’t appear to actually mete out as is claimed because the people who are accused rarely, if ever, have any actual negative consequences.
> actually mete out as is claimed because the people who are accused rarely, if ever, have any actual negative consequences. I think the opposite is true. Accusing someone of rape is often very bad for the accused person, even if the claim is never substantiated. False rape accusations are defamatory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I draw it from decades of living life and reading the news. I remember my college days, when the loony left ran the politics of the place, because normal people were uninterested, beyond having a good laugh at their right-on craziness, that achieved precisely nothing. Now social media puts their immature views front and center in our politics and their opinions are dragged ever further to the crazy left by profes…
I've always been against dismissive responses like "ok boomer", but you are really pushing it. First of all you should say when your days were. Secondly I'm italian so whenever they were, that means absolutely nothing to me. Third, all of this is completely OT.
Oh yes, silly us, we forgot this entire discussion was about you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They weren't made unemployable nor impoverished. Many migrated to the cities and worked in the factories. Their complaints were more about the move from being an artisan to being manual labor.
"Yes, and", to see young children literally worked to death, getting crushed in machines . They were against that. And people were impoverished, as can be seen in the drop of life expectancy until labour laws were enacted. Edit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36335796/
>The initial wave of poor health during the industrial revolution gave way to increased life expectancy and decreased levels of infectious disease during the later 19th century, linked to various public health measures.
>By the latter part of the nineteenth century, life expectancy and health improved, and the growing health disparity between rural and urban areas started to decrease.
>Our knowledge of the living conditions of the 19th century, particularly amongst the urban poor, has led to a strong assumption that a significant decline in health occurred at the onset of the Industrial Revolution. We must be cautious not to overly sentimentalise the medieval and early modern periods, when air pollution (primarily from woodsmoke and also sea coal) was common (Brimblecombe, 1976) and adult life expectancy was lower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, tokens are passed as input to a model, which then outputs the next most-likely token. At the heart of it, that's the technology right? Why is it so silly to call that autocomplete? Because it's capable of impressive things?
> Because it's capable of impressive things? Precisely. Calling it autocomplete when it's capable of completing tasks that have nothing to do with autocomplete is silly. If you want to be consistent with your terminology, you'd have to call any stochastic process "autocomplete". What makes it double silly is that you can't really exclude that human intelligence is a stochastic process.
I'm fine with calling any process "autocomplete" if it takes language as input and returns predicted language as output.
I don't feel any need to broaden the definition to include things that have nothing to do with language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're making an assumption that there is no difference between intelligence and auto complete with sufficient resources and learned patterns to complete tasks a human might do. There may not be a difference there, I don't know but I wouldn't assume that intelligence is nothing more than sufficiently complex auto complete.
I'm not making that assumption. Specifically - I'm not making any assumption about nature of human intelligence, including not making assumption that it's not stochastic process. You exclude possibility that it is stochastic process without any good reason for it (wanting to call AI complex auto complete while keeping human intelligence completely safe from that label really is not good reason).
I'm not excluding that what we consider intelligence isn't equivalent to autocomplete. Go back and read my last comment, I explicitly left the door open for those two being functionally the same. I was only pointing out that you seemed to be assuming intelligence is fancy auto complete rather than it could be fancy auto complete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good start would have been them not calling this artificial intelligence at all. The hype is largely based on the term "AI" and if it really is simply a (very impressive) auto complete tool it isn't intelligence at all, though as you said can be a very useful tool.
But that's their whole pitch: Altman is, last I heard, still insisting that they're going to have an AGI—in the sense of a "strong AI", capable of ushering in the supposed Singularity—by the end of the decade. To be clear, I completely agree that we'd be better off as a society if they referred to all the LLMs as LLMs, and not as AI, but that's completely antithetical to their intentions and beliefs.
Economics is a study of the past, we won't know what an AI can do economically until it is already released and allowed to directly compete with human labor. There's no safety in such an approach.
This is a bit ranty and not directed at you, to be clear. I just have no patience for how the LLM industry throws around terms at this point, especially OpenAI and Altman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think to most people, "you won't have to work any more" sounds like a good thing, except in our current society, it means "oh by the way, you and your children will starve".
Yeah I absolutely agree, if you ask me Andrew Yang should be getting calls about every day now, and UBI should be getting mentioned far more, but none of that is happening. Opposing technology has a godawful track record and for some reason there's focus on that rather than tackling the actual problems. I bet that behind closed doors, directives are laughing at college students. Why, they are basically playing misdir…
As soon as UBI looks like it might happen, legislators will be drafting perverse incentives for themselves and their friends and family.