241–250 of 260 posts
Just like in Rifters trilogy by Peter Watts, Internet will become unusable thanks to AI-driven spam, phishing, SEO, and other junk content.
Is that really because of the AI, or because of humans controlling them? We already have incredible levels of spam, phishing, junk SEO content. Created from humans and scripts driven by humans.
> A reduction in the labor force for skilled creative work
I agree and disagree with this. Stable diffusion is art, but creating the art is still within the realm of artists. Also, they'll still need copyediting, refining, etc. I think creatives will transfer or complement their skills with this stuff, like some are already doing. (Example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VGa1imApfdg)
I also very highly doubt that fine art will ever be 100% AI. Uniqueness drives their value.
> The complete elimination of humans in customer-support roles
Definitely not. Human customer service is key for achieving high eNPS scores. People will always want to talk to other people, even if IVR and chat can address their needs.
> More convincing spam and phishing content, more scalable scams
Definitely, but it is well documented that the most common types of scams are made to be deliberately "off" to find easy marks more quickly.
> SEO hacking content farms dominating search results > Book farms (both eBooks and paper) flooding the market
Both of these have been happening for many years. OpenAI will make it easier to stand up boilerplate hello-world starters though (as OP called out). I suppose Google will downrank sites like this to prevent incentivizing this.
> AI-generated content overwhelming social media Widespread propaganda and astroturfing, both in politics and advertising
This is the one thing I'm actually concerned about. I hope that Reddit doesn't become people talking to other people via ChatGPT assistants. That would be a cultural net loss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A doctor for every person, a teacher for every child, available any time and for free. For free meaning that it is paid by quietly slipping ads into prescriptions or lessons?
If the OpenAI pricing is indicative, reading 16k token of medical history and giving a 4k token response will cost $1.50 on GPT-4 and 6.4¢ on GPT-3.5-turbo. The lower of those two is roughly what someone at the UN abject poverty threshold will spend in 48 minutes 30 seconds on "not literally starving to death".
I don't get that. In the poorest people get by on the equivalent of about $1 per day and not many starve. In fact the only part of the planet where the population is booming at the moment is sub Saharan Africa.
Chat GTP and similar will presumably have free tiers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's not moral or ethical, but it doesn't make you a bad person. When it's done en-masse, is encouraged, and corporations monetize it, is when it starts becoming a problem. >If something is not perfectly moral/ethical, it doesn't mean you should never do it. i think that when emissions are brought up in an argument, it's not usually this more nuanced take (that I also take some issue with, by the way, as it's imposs…
> it's impossible to do anything not en masse at 8b population you are missing some simple arithmetic here. yes, x times y can get arbitrarily big if x does (and y is non-negative), but then changes in y would just have even more of an impact. take x to be population and y to be emission per person and you should see your mistake.
gp argued that stuff becomes problematic when done en masse. my issue with that is, if you disallow en-masse $thing, who’s going to gatekeep the tiny, exclusive, non-en-masse club allowed to do $thing?
I’m in my late fourties’ and have witnessed only a handful of transformative technologies in my time. Nothing in the last 15 years has given me that “tingly feeling” of excitement — you know, that feeling that we’re on the cusp of something transformative — than the recent progress in AI. While the new AI frontier might be led by prohibitively expensive (and closed) large language models, we’re also seeing great gras…
Incidentally I wrote about that stuff for my uni entrance exam ages 17 and it has always seemed kind of obvious and inevitable to me. It surprises me there are so many skeptics.
You could have said that for almost all tech improvements in history - electricity, medicine, radio, cars, trains, plumbing etc. Capitalism as in people selling stuff for money is just how things get done. At least to begin with.
There will absolutely be some great benefits provided by LLMs and the like. Alexa type devices that are more useful than a light switch. Auto spelling correction that actually works most of the time. Maybe a microwave oven that just has one ‘Heat this up’ button.
But I think the beneficial use cases will be a fraction of the overall use cases.
These technologies are going to be far more effective at enshitifying our world. Spam, scams, replacing artists and knowledge workers with tools that can produce ‘good enough’ output… and yeah, military capabilities that’ll allow humans to kill more humans more cost effectively.
I’m looking forward to the good stuff, it’ll be neat. But absolutely dreading the wave of horribleness that’ll inevitably come of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would the poor not be able to afford human generated content? Copying human generated context costs basically nothing, so the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing.
> Why would the poor not be able to afford human generated content? Because, why not? It's called segmentation. > Copying human generated context costs basically nothing, so the marginal cost of letting the poor view it is basically nothing. How do you explain why more recent movies are more expensive to buy or rent on streaming services, then?
Artificial price inflation and recouping costs combined. Fueled by FOMO, people tend to pay more to be able to access it and be up-to-date (TM) in their social circles.
They'll probably recoup the costs without inflated prices, but if they can exploit that title for more money, they'll do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately, I suspect we will get a two-tiered system, where the "middle class" (whether that's disappearing is another question) can afford human content/human support/etc, and the working class are forced to endure poor experiences with AI generated content and so on I’m imagining world where companies like Netflix and Spotify introduce dirt-cheap subscription tiers that are populate with AI generated content,…
Who’s to say that the AI-generated content will be worse than human-generated? Just because that’s the case today doesn’t mean it’ll be so forever.
Also, a machine cannot create equally complex or more complex than itself, so AI is always capped at human capacity, at most, asymptotically.
It can be faster. It can batch process, but it can't process "like a human".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The richest countries in the world cannot even produce enough competent doctors and teachers to fill their current needs. A world that produces enough skilled human doctors to meet everyones needs is even more science fiction than a world with skilled AI doctors.
The richest countries in the world choose not to produce enough competent doctors because of capitalist incentives, not because it's actually impossible.