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

This is not the future

blog.mathieui.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 430 posts

Re: This is not the future

#261

Post by wasabi991011 »

xvector wrote: post #217
terminalshort wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One thing I've noticed - artists view their own job as more valuable, more sacred, more important than virtually any other person's job. They canonize themselves, and then act all shocked and offended when the rest of the world doesn't share their belief. Obviously the existence of AI is valuable enough to pay the cost of offsetting a few artists' jobs, it's not even a question to us, but to artists it's shocking and…

The opposite is also true, the tech world views itself as more sacred that any other part of humanity.

You say it's obvious that the existence of AI is valuable to offset a few artists' jobs, but it is far from obvious. The benefits of AI are still unproven (a more hallucinatory google? a tool to help programmers make architectural errors faster? a way to make ads easier to create and sloppier?). The discussion as to whether AI is valuable is common on hackernews even, so I really don't buy the "it's obvious" claim. Furthermore, the idea that it is only offsetting a few artists' jobs is also unproven: the future is uncertain, it may devastate entire industries.

Re: This is not the future

#262

Post by user99979 »

Just get a new iPhone and keeping paying for iCloud. I really resonate with older folks going with the flow on technology. My dad has to watch 90 second ads on his TV to see YouTube videos. I hate it for him.

Re: This is not the future

#263

Post by [deleted] »

mason_mpls wrote: post #121
voxleone wrote: post #50

The author says>> "Not being in control of course makes people endlessy frustrated, but at the same time trying to wrestle control from the parasites is an uphill battle that they expect to lose, with more frustration as a result." While this reaction is understandable, it is difficult to feel sympathy when so few people are willing to invest the time and effort required to actually understand how these systems work…

It’s a trope now that loads of internet users will complain about Mac OS & Windows, while digging in their heels against switching to Linux. Just take your medicine people.

[deleted]

Re: This is not the future

#264

Post by bostonwalker »

shishy wrote: post #88

The idea that the future is architected by our choices (or lack of it) is the crux of one of the opportunity spaces at the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) in the UK. Worth getting on your radar if this stuff is of interesting: https://aria.org.uk/opportunity-spaces/collective-flourishin... (full disclosure: I'm working with the programme director on helping define the funding programme, so if you're wor…

RE your link, I am not sure that anything of value has been articulated in describing this vague notion of "Collective Flourishing". After reading the page two or three times, the best I can understand is that it seems to be a call for technical solutions to problems that are actually deeply social in nature and require social solutions. Strange to see such nebulous slop coming from an official government agency.

Re: This is not the future

#265

Post by markus_zhang »

epidemiology wrote: post #209
markus_zhang wrote: post #203

I’d still say, this is the future, like it or not. See how much capital has been poured into the caldron? None of the items is technically inevitable, but the world runs on capital, and capital alone. Tech advances are just a by product of capital snooping around trying to increase itself.

The world runs on capital until it runs on votes, and sometimes bullets.

That’s true!

Re: This is not the future

#266

Post by chaseadam17 »

mat_b wrote: post #260
chaseadam17 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are the levees in your metaphor and we have agency. The problem is not that one founder does something before another and gains an advantage. The problem is the millions of people who buy or use the harmful thing they create - and that we all have control over. If we continue down this path we'll end up at free will vs determinism and I choose to believe the future is not inevitable.

We aren't the real levees though. The system we live in is. Yes, a few people will push back and try to change the momentum to a different direction but that's painful and we have enough going on each day that most people don't have time for that (let alone agree on the direction). Structural change is the only real way to guide the river.

How does structural change happen in a democracy?

Re: This is not the future

#267

Post by EvanAnderson »

flr03 wrote: post #165

As a tech person the older I get the less tech interests me. Analogical is where I get the fun from, no more smart watch, smart tv, spotify, connected home things, automatic coffee machine, no thank you.

Almost no new technology is respectful enough to its users for me to consider making accomodations for it in my life.

It's not just that it's not fun. Any fun I derive is canceled-out by the inevitable loss.

I've felt white-hot blazing anger so many times when a feature is taken away by an "update" that I am not permitted to revert. I don't want to feel that feeling anymore.

Re: This is not the future

#268

Post by bigbuppo »

BloondAndDoom wrote: post #119

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…

When people talk about AI, they aren't talking about the algorithms and models. They're talking about the business. If you can't honestly stand up and look at the way the AI companies and related business are operating and not feel at least a little unease, you're probably Sam Altman.

Re: This is not the future

#269

Post by ReliantGuyZ »

xvector wrote: post #217
terminalshort wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One thing I've noticed - artists view their own job as more valuable, more sacred, more important than virtually any other person's job. They canonize themselves, and then act all shocked and offended when the rest of the world doesn't share their belief. Obviously the existence of AI is valuable enough to pay the cost of offsetting a few artists' jobs, it's not even a question to us, but to artists it's shocking and…

It's shocking and offensive to artists and to like-minded others because AI labs have based the product that is replacing them off of their existing labor with no compensation. It would be one thing to build a computerized artist that out-competes human artists on merit (arguably happening now), this has happened to dozens of professions over hundreds of years. But the fact that it was built directly off of their past labors with no offer, plan, or even consideration of making them whole for their labor in the corpus is unjust on its face.

Certainly there are artists with inflated egos and senses of self-importance (many computer programmers with this condition too), but does this give us moral high ground to freely use their work?

How many people is it OK to exploit to create "AI"?

Re: This is not the future

#270

Post by Mithriil »

I think what people tend to forget when speaking of inevitability is that the scope of their statement is important.

*Existence* of a situation as inevitable isn't so bold of a claim. For example, someone will use an AI technology to cheat on an exam. Fine, it's possible. Heck, it is mathematically certain if we have a civilization that has exams and AI techs, and if that civilization runs infinitely.

*Generality* of a situation as inevitable, however, tends to go the other way.

Post reply on HN