Live data from Hacker News

This is not the future

blog.mathieui.net

181–190 of 430 posts

Re: This is not the future

#181

I understand artists etc. Talking about AI in a negative sense, because they don’t really get it completely, or just it’s against their self interest which means they find bad arguments to support their own interest subconsciously. However tech people who thinks AI is bad, or not inevitable is really hard to understand. It’s almost like Bill Gates saying “we are not interested in internet”. This is pretty much being…

> Does it matter? Like how does it matter? It matters because the amount of influence something has on you is directly attributable to the amount of human effort put into it. When that effort is removed so to is the influence. Influence does not exist independently of effort. All the people yapping about LLM keep fundamentally not grasping that concept. They think that output exists in a pure functional vacuum.

Well, the LLMs were trained with data that required human effort to write, it's not just random noise. So the result they can give is, indirectly and probabilistically regurgitated, human effort.

Re: This is not the future

#182
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you don't intend this, but I intuit that you imply that Game theory's inevitability leads to the inevitability of many claims the author's claims aren't inevitable. To me, this inevitability only is guaranteed if we assume a framing of non-cooperative game theory with idealized self-interested actors. I think cooperative game theory[1] better models the dynamics of the real world. More important than thinking…

>I think cooperative game theory[1] better models the dynamics of the real world. If cooperative coalitions to resist undesirable abusive technology models the real world better, why is the world getting more ads? (E.g. One of the author's bullet points was, "Ads are not inevitable." ) Currently in the real world... - Ads frequency goes up : more ad interruptions in tv shows, native ads embedded in podcasts, sponsors…

I'll try and tackle this one. I think the world is getting more ads because Silicon Valley and it's Anxiety Economy are putting a thumb on the scale.

For the entirety of the 2010's we had SaaS startups invading every space of software, for a healthy mix of better and worse, and all of them (and a number even today) are running the exact same playbook, boiled down to broad terms: burn investor money to build a massive network-effected platform, and then monetize via attention (some combo of ads, user data, audience reach/targeting). The problem is thus: despite all these firms collecting all this data (and tanking their public trust by both abusing it and leaking it constantly) for years and years, we really still only have ads. We have specifically targeted ads, down to downright abusive metrics if you're inclined and lack a soul or sense of ethics, but they are and remain ads. And each time we get a better targeted ad, the ones that are less targeted go down in value. And on and on it has gone.

Now, don't misunderstand, a bunch of these platforms are still perfectly fine business-wise because they simply show an inexpressible, unimaginable number of ads, and even if they earn shit on each one, if you earn a shit amount of money a trillion times, you'll have billions of dollars. However it has meant that the Internet has calcified into those monolith platforms that can operate that way (Facebook, Instagram, Google, the usuals) and everyone else either gets bought by them or they die. There's no middle-ground.

All of that to say: yes, on balance, we have more ads. However the advertising industry in itself has never been in worse shape. It's now dominated by those massive tech companies to an insane degree. Billboards and other such ads, which were once commonplace are now solely the domain of ambulance chasing lawyers and car dealerships. TV ads are no better, production value has tanked, they look cheaper and shittier than ever, and the products are solely geared to the boomers because they're the only ones still watching broadcast TV. Hell many are straight up shitty VHS replays of ads I saw in the fucking 90's, it's wild. We're now seeing AI video and audio dominate there too.

And going back to tech, the platforms stuff more ads into their products than ever and yet, they're less effective than ever. A lot of younger folks I know don't even bother with an ad-blocker, not because they like them, but simply because they've been scrolling past ads since they were shitting in diapers. It's just the background wallpaper of the Internet to them, and that sounds (and is) dystopian, but the problem is nobody notices the background wallpaper, which means despite the saturation, ads get less attention then ever before. And worse still, the folks who don't block cost those ad companies impressions and resources to serve those ads that are being ignored.

So, to bring this back around: the coalition that makes ads "inevitable" isn’t consumers or creators, it's investors and platforms locked into the same anxiety‑economy business model. Cooperative resistance exists (ad‑blockers, subscription models, cultural fatigue), but it’s dwarfed by the sheer scale of capital propping up attention‑monetization. That’s why we see more ads even as they get less effective.

Re: This is not the future

#183
post #22

This is the inevitability of unfettered capitalism. The pressure is towards generating wealth, with the intended hope that the side effect will be that this produces net 'good' for society. It has worked (to varying degrees) and has enabled the modern world. But it may well be running out of steam. I do not think that the current philosophical world view will enable a different path. We've had resets or potential res…

COVID was in many ways the opposite of a reset. It further solidified massive wealth disparity and power concentration. The positive feedback loop doesn’t appear to have a good off-ramp.

The off ramp to the loop was always a crisis like a recession or war. Covid could have been such an example. If the government hadn't bailed everyone out, the pandemic would have been a mass casualty event for companies and their owners. The financial crisis of 2008 also would have been such an event if not for the bailouts. The natural state of the economy is boom and bust, with wealth concentration increasing during the booms and dropping during the busts. But it turns out the busts are really painful for everyone, and so our government has learned how to mostly keep them from happening. Turns out people prefer the ever increasing concentration of wealth an power that this results in over the temporary pain of economic depression.

Re: This is not the future

#184
post #41
post #19

I do think AI involvement in programming is inevitable; but at this time a lot of the resistance is because AI programming currently is not the best tool for many jobs. To better the analogy: I have a wood stove in my living room, and when it's exceptionally cold, I enjoy using it. I don't "enjoy" stacking wood in the fall, but I'm a lazy nerd, so I appreciate the exercise. That being said, my house has central heati…

If it were this inevitable, would AI be pushed down our throats, against our will, against our own laws, even, so hard?

Because the ones pushing it down your throats are trying to capture the entire market and get you to adopt their AI instead of a competitor.

Re: This is not the future

#185
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think cooperative game theory[1] better models the dynamics of the real world. If cooperative coalitions to resist undesirable abusive technology models the real world better, why is the world getting more ads? (E.g. One of the author's bullet points was, "Ads are not inevitable." ) Currently in the real world... - Ads frequency goes up : more ad interruptions in tv shows, native ads embedded in podcasts, sponsors…

I'll try and tackle this one. I think the world is getting more ads because Silicon Valley and it's Anxiety Economy are putting a thumb on the scale. For the entirety of the 2010's we had SaaS startups invading every space of software, for a healthy mix of better and worse, and all of them (and a number even today) are running the exact same playbook, boiled down to broad terms: burn investor money to build a massive…

[dead]

Re: This is not the future

#186
The genie is already out of the bottle. Even if we stopped AI development now, anyone can use an open weight model.

Besides the bigger issue is that this blog post offers no concrete way forward.

Re: This is not the future

#187
This article has such palpable distain for the people who consume these products that it makes me wonder why the author even cares what kind of future they inhabit.

> But what is important to me is to keep the perspective of what consitutes a desirable future, and which actions get us closer or further from that.

Desirable to whom? I certainly don't think the status quo is perfect, but I do think dismissing it as purely the product of some faceless cadre of tech oligarchs desires is arrogant. People do have agency, the author just doesn't like what they have chosen to do with it...

Re: This is not the future

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you consider the inputs, human art uses much more electricity than the bit of inference that AI art takes.

Yes, but that electricity consumption benefits an actual person . I'm so surprised that I often find myself having to explain this to AI boosters but people have more value than computers . If you throw a computer in a trash compactor, that's a trivial amount of e-waste. If you throw a living person in a trash compactor, that's a moral tragedy.

The people who build, maintain, and own the datacenters. The people who work at and own the companies that make the hardware in the datacenters. The people who work to build new power plants to power the data centers. The truck drivers that transport all the supplies to build the data centers and power plants.

These are all real people.

Re: This is not the future

#189
Rather than pointlessly lament the destructive power of fire, we should be spending our time learning how to fire-proof our homes.

These are all natural forces, they may be human forces but they are still natural forces. We can't stop them, we can only mitigate them -- and we _can_ mitigate them, but not if we just stick our fingers in our ears and pretend it's not going to happen.

It absolutely is. Whatever you can imagine. All of it.

Re: This is not the future

#190

I understand artists etc. Talking about AI in a negative sense, because they don’t really get it completely, or just it’s against their self interest which means they find bad arguments to support their own interest subconsciously. However tech people who thinks AI is bad, or not inevitable is really hard to understand. It’s almost like Bill Gates saying “we are not interested in internet”. This is pretty much being…

Apologies, but I'm copy/pasting a previous reply of mine to a similar sentiment: Art is an expression of human emotion. When I hear music, I am part of those artists journey, struggles. The emotion in their songs come from their first break-up, an argument they had with someone they loved. I can understand that on a profound, shared level. Way back me and my friends played a lot of starcraft. We only played cooperati…

On the other hand, I prefer playing video games against AI because human skill disparity almost always ruins PvP. Though really I simply prefer co-op.
Post reply on HN