The OP confuses "inevitable" with "totalizing" in part. Many bad things seem likely to be adopted by large numbers of people, and yet that does not mean everyone will be somehow forced into adopting these things.
This is not the future
281–290 of 430 posts
Re: This is not the future
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Game theory is not inevitable, neither is math. Both are attempts to understand the world around us and predict what is likely to happen next given a certain context. Weather predictions are just math, for example, and they are always wrong to some degree.
Because the models aren't sophisticated enough (yet). There's no voodoo here. I'm always surprised how many 'logical' tech people shy away from simple determinism, given how obvious a deterministic universe becomes the more time you spend in computer science, and seem to insist there's some sort of metaphysical influence out there somewhere we'll never understand. There's not. Math is almost the definition of inevita…
It's funny because a central tenet of quantum mechanics, that I find deeply frustrating, is "No determinism, sorry."
So even as you chastise people for shying away from logically concluding the obvious, you're trusting your intuition over the scientific consensus. Which is fine, I've absolutely read theories or claims about quantum mechanics and said "Bullshit," safe in the knowledge that my belief or disbelief won't help or hinder scientific advancement or the operation of the universe, but I'd avoid being so publicly smug about it if I were you.
Re: This is not the future
#283“The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.”
David Graeber
I guess the problem is scale. A system based on altruism, trust and reciprocity might work great for a community of 20 people. But it doesn't scale to millions of people. Consequently, we end up with (in the West) various shades of democracy, "the least bad system". However, democracy doesn't work well when a tiny fabulously-rich elite is able to buy up all the media and a sizeable chunk of the politicians.
Re: This is not the future
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
So are photos that are edited via Photoshop not art? Are they not art if they were taken on a digital camera? What about electronic music? You could argue all these things are not art because they used technology, just like AI music or images... no? Where does the spectrum of "true art" begin and end?
If you know what goes into the making of good photos, or good art, you can make out the difference in ability.
If you use GenAI to simply remove effort, then it’s a savings of efficiency, not an expression of ability.
If they used GenAI to create pictures that couldn’t be taken, or to create compositions, novel tableaus or effects - then that is artistic.
I suppose post-modernism may not give a hoot.
Re: This is not the future
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
The statement "Game theory is inevitable. Because game theory is just math, the study of how independent actors react to incentives." implies that the "actors" are humans. But that's not what game theory assumes. Game theory just provides a mathematical framework to analyze outcomes of decisions when parts of the system have different goals. Game theory does not claim to predict human behavior (humans make mistakes,…
A practical formula: 1) Identify coordination failures that lock us into bad equilibria, e.g. it's impossible to defect from the online ads model without losing access to a valuable social graph 2) Look for leverage that rewrites the payoffs for a coalition rather than for one individual: right-to-repair laws, open protocols, interoperable standards, fiduciary duty, reputation systems, etc. 3) Accept that heroic non-…
As a recent example, Jon Haidt seems to have used this kind of tactic to pull off a coup with the whole kids/smartphones/social media thing [0]. Everybody knew social media tech was corrosive and soul-rotting, but nobody could move individually to stand up against its “inevitability.”
Individual families felt like, if they took away or postponed their kids’ phones, their kid would be left out and ostracized—which was probably true as long as all the other kids had them. And if a group of families or a school wanted to coordinate on something different, they’d have to 1) be ok with seeming “backwards,” and 2) squabble about how specifically to operationalize the idea.
Haidt framed it as “four simple norms,” which offered specific new Schelling points for families to use as concrete alternatives to “it’s inevitable.” And in shockingly little time, it’s at the point where 26 states have enshrined the ideas into legislation [1].
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/19/jonathan-haidt-on-smartphone...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/cellphones-phones-school-ban-stat...
Re: This is not the future
#286I do disagree that some of these were not inevitable. Let me deconstruct a couple: > Tiktok is not inevitable. TikTok the app and company, not inevitable. Short form video as the medium, and algorithm that samples entire catalog (vs just followers) were inevitable. Short form video follows gradual escalation of most engaging content formats, with legacy stretching from short-form-text in Twitter, short-form-photo in…
You're taking the meaning of the word "inevitable" too literally.
Something might be "inevitable" in the sense that someone is going to create it at some point whether we like it or not.
Something is also not "inevitable" in the sense that we will be forced to use it or you will not be able to function in society. We do not need to tolerate being abused by the elites or use their terrible products because they say so. We can just say no.
Re: This is not the future
#287I think a more accurate and more useful framing is: Game theory is inevitable . Because game theory is just math, the study of how independent actors react to incentives. The specific examples called out here may or may not be inevitable. It's true that the future is unknowable, but it's also true that the future is made up of 8B+ independent actors and that they're going to react to incentives. It's also true that y…
Game theory assumes that all the players agree on the pay-offs. However this is often not the case in real world situations. Robert MacNamara (the ex US secretary of defence) said that he realized after the Vietnam war the US and the Vietnamese saw the war completely differently, even years after war had ended (see the excellent documentary 'Fog of War').
Re: This is not the future
#288I 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…
This kind of talk I see as an extension of OP's rant. You talk as if mass theft of these LLM growing companies was inevitable. Hogwash and absolutely wrong. It isn't inevitable and it (my opinion) it shouldn't be.
Re: This is not the future
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>Art is an expression of human emotion Yet humans are the ones enacting an AI for art (of some kind). Is not therefore not art because even though a human initiated the process, the machine completed it? If you argue that, then what about kinetic sculptures, what about pendulum painting, etc? The artist sets them in motion but the rest of the actions are carried out by something nonhuman. And even in a fully autonomo…
You seem to be conflating natural beauty and the arts.
Just because something beautiful can be created without emotion, that doesn't mean it's art. It just means something pleasing was created.
We have many species on earth that are "alien" to us - they don't create with emotion, they create things that are beautiful because that's just how it ended up.
Bees don't create hexagonal honeycomb because they feel a certain way, it's just the most efficient way for them to do so. Spider webs are also created for efficacy. Down to the single cell, things are constructed in beautiful ways not for the sake of beauty, but out of evolution.
The earth itself creates things that are absolutely beautiful, but are not art. They are merely the result of chemical and kinetic processes.
The "art" of it all, is how humans interpret it and build upon it, with experience, imagination, free will and emotions.
What you see in the night sky, that is not art. That is nature.
The things that humans are compelled to create under the influence of all this beauty - that is the art.
Re: This is not the future
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very reductionist claim about how people use AI in their art process. The truth is that the best artists use AI in a sort of dance between the human and machine. But always, the human is the prime mover through a process of iteration.
Yes, the BEST artists. The rest of the people using the Studio Ghibli filter ?
Forgettable. Plagiaristic. The most anti-art qualities.