Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement • Hacker News Board

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#21

Post by chatgtpsux » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:42 AM UTC

ChatGTP wrote: post #17

brigadier132 wrote: post #12

Well said, this thing is here to stay. When I first played around with gpt-4 I was filled with immense dread. I, as many others have, immediately understood what kind of enormous societal impact this would have. But I put the question to myself, if I could magically wish this thing away, would I? I wouldn't. I understand the many that would, this thing completely upends the status quo. Massive swathes of people will…

If you think AI is a disaster, think about the potential for medical breakthroughs that can emerge from this. The “think of the good” argument is over played. Same was true for combustion engines, they will probably send us extinct. I’d like it if people just stopped with it. People aren’t idiots, they know good things and very bad things can be achieved.

[flagged]

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#22

Post by Taywee » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:42 AM UTC

This wave of AI has the power to be incredibly transformative for good, but not given any of the current economic or copyright systems we have now.

I don't know how any of the proponents can pretend that this isn't an abject disaster on the horizon for anybody who depends on copyright to make their living.

This is the natural progression to the unnatural properties of the shared delusion of pretending like ideas are property or that it every was natural to keep them artificially scarce. If we lived in an ideal system where ideas are free, copyright didn't exist, and artists and programmers could survive and thrive without the ability or need to hoard their work as if they were physical goods, this would be a non-issue. The system was antiquated for the needs of the modern world for multiple human generations already, and this is the dam breaking.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#23

Post by chatgtpsux » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:43 AM UTC

gwoolhurme wrote: post #19

ChatGTP wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think AI is a disaster, think about the potential for medical breakthroughs that can emerge from this. The “think of the good” argument is over played. Same was true for combustion engines, they will probably send us extinct. I’d like it if people just stopped with it. People aren’t idiots, they know good things and very bad things can be achieved.

Yeah I really hate this line of argument as well. We obviously understand it can have a lot of beneficial effects in society. It's a strawman to say that people don't see that. The problem is nobody seems to be properly discussing the bad things that can and will occur.

[flagged]

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#24

Post by williamcotton » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:44 AM UTC

gwoolhurme wrote: post #15

I think it's only natural to think of AI as the enemy no? Sure theoretically it means better healthcare, scientific improvement. However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers. As we become potentially obsolete what happens to us. Saying that you can do art as a hobby or programming as a hobby really isn't an answer people…

However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists

So does the world currently only listen to singer-songwriters on acoustic guitar at small local venues?

The humanity in the consumption of art has been subject to mass commodification for centuries at this point.

This process is driven by money and not love. Technology has nothing to do with it.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#25

Post by chatgtpsux » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:45 AM UTC

ChatGTP wrote: post #18

make3 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why, if you are in America? afaik chatGPT is available everywhere, & there's a huge amount of alternatives

Just a heads up ChatGPT isn’t a substitute for a real doctor.

[flagged]

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#26

Post by thrdbndndn » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:45 AM UTC

> there should be a right to choose to refuse it

Even out of the context of AI, I think this isn't stressed enough in general copyright discussion, especially around piracy.

People often say that piracy doesn't actually reduce the sale -- which I fully agree -- but that's not the only concern artists have, especially some indie ones. I have seen both illustration/musical artists explicitly stating they don't care if "their work is enjoyed and known by more people because of piracy", they only want paid users to get it. I don't even agree with this sentiment, but I respect it since it's their choice to make, not mine.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#27

Post by mftb » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:47 AM UTC

Peter Gabriel is fucking courageous. I love it. I'm a 50+ programmer. I can absolutely feel this shit pressing on me. Good. Are people right that there are ethical concerns, absolutely. We need to get busy realizing the potential and dealing with the issues.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#28

Post by hackyhacky » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:48 AM UTC

williamcotton wrote: post #24

gwoolhurme wrote: post #15

I think it's only natural to think of AI as the enemy no? Sure theoretically it means better healthcare, scientific improvement. However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers. As we become potentially obsolete what happens to us. Saying that you can do art as a hobby or programming as a hobby really isn't an answer people…

However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists So does the world currently only listen to singer-songwriters on acoustic guitar at small local venues? The humanity in the consumption of art has been subject to mass commodification for centuries at this point. This process is driven by money and not love. Technology has nothing to do with it.

You're technically correct, but missing the point:

When technology destroys menial jobs, it's progress.

When technology destroys white-color jobs, it's a threat.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#29

Post by asah » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:49 AM UTC

ChatGTP wrote: post #17

brigadier132 wrote: post #12

Well said, this thing is here to stay. When I first played around with gpt-4 I was filled with immense dread. I, as many others have, immediately understood what kind of enormous societal impact this would have. But I put the question to myself, if I could magically wish this thing away, would I? I wouldn't. I understand the many that would, this thing completely upends the status quo. Massive swathes of people will…

If you think AI is a disaster, think about the potential for medical breakthroughs that can emerge from this. The “think of the good” argument is over played. Same was true for combustion engines, they will probably send us extinct. I’d like it if people just stopped with it. People aren’t idiots, they know good things and very bad things can be achieved.

Given the ability to sustain billions, statistically speaking neither of us would've been born if it weren't for the combustion engine.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#30

Post by spacephysics » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:50 AM UTC

gwoolhurme wrote: post #15

I think it's only natural to think of AI as the enemy no? Sure theoretically it means better healthcare, scientific improvement. However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers. As we become potentially obsolete what happens to us. Saying that you can do art as a hobby or programming as a hobby really isn't an answer people…

I think we can look at history and see how revolutionary technologies changed the landscape of society.

No one knows really the magnitude of AI, but if we take the two extremes, AI takes all our jobs, and AI is just some stats that has no real utility, we’ll probably land somewhere in the middle.

Personally, I’m trying to learn these technologies to augment my current work. I’m treating it like going from using Notepad to program Java, over to a full fledged IDE. Not a perfect analogy, I know.

Given its inevitability, I think it’s logical to try and use it to our advantage as workers. If it ends up taking our jobs anyways, at least we tried. If it doesn’t take our jobs outright, then we’ll still be behind those that use the AI products as tools that augment their productivity, leading to a game of catch-up.

Even with the 6 month hiatus proposed, AI versions will still be released by those that refuse to follow the agreement. We’re in an AI arms race against the likes of other world super powers. And the morality of some are quite questionable (not that US’ morality is perfect by any means)