It really isn’t, and we by and large don’t. The New Republic seems to be falsely equating “active Mastodon posters” with “the public”; it’s just not true outside of some very specific and insular bubbles.
The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
291–300 of 399 posts
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sort of regulation do you think is needed for this?
I think frontier AI research should be outlawed until such time as there's a broad consensus on how society ought to deal with it. This would have to be coordinated internationally to be effective, but I think that would be achievable if the US sent a credible signal by forcibly shutting down any one of the major labs.
Even supposing we could somehow get the political will to do this, how would you write such a law? What counts as “AI frontier research”? How would you write a regulation around that that isn’t trivial to bypass without banning general computing itself?
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#293ChatGPT has a billion users so surely not all of the public hates it
Usage != positive feelings.
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you lost your $60,000 a year job due to this, do you really believe a basic income funded by it will make up that loss? It won't. Basic income in the US is usually proposed at $12k per year, which would add another $3 trillion to the budget. Do you think you can even get that just taxing these companies? I don't. People who bring up basic income need to get serious about the numbers involved because I never see it…
>Do you think you can even get that just taxing these companies? If we go back to a 60% corporate tax rate, for sure.
They’ll just find a way to have $0 of profit. You have nothing to tax.
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non-violent means don't work and get you killed by cops. This is what the people are left with.
but violence doesnt work either, even if you conquer a whole nation (or social class or insert w/e here), you didnt really win and oneday they will get their revenge, so you're better off trying the non-violent way
[dead]
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
Violence is only allowed in one direction.
It's only allowed in one direction, but it's effective in many. Violence is the reason slavery ended in the US. Violence brought us civil rights laws. Gay rights. Women's rights. Labor laws. Environmental protection laws. Every right granted by default to white Christian gentlemen at the founding of this great nation had to be taken in blood by everyone else. That's just how America is. It cannot be trusted to live u…
Half of those things were not brought about by violence. Labor laws? Absolutely. Gay rights, maybe? Gay marriage was famously won non-violently by showing the wider public that gay is normal.
What violence brought about women's rights or environmental protection laws? I suppose protestors destroyed the fur market.
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#297Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think frontier AI research should be outlawed until such time as there's a broad consensus on how society ought to deal with it. This would have to be coordinated internationally to be effective, but I think that would be achievable if the US sent a credible signal by forcibly shutting down any one of the major labs.
Even supposing we could somehow get the political will to do this, how would you write such a law? What counts as “AI frontier research”? How would you write a regulation around that that isn’t trivial to bypass without banning general computing itself?
As I said in a sibling comment, we're fortunate that training modern AIs requires large quantities of specialized compute. We just have to restrict GPU sales and outlaw GPU farms. I don't deny that it would be a seismic, controversial change, but I don't think it's terribly hard to implement if we can reach a consensus that we want to implement it.
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention, it doesn't actually create the productivity promised at the lower rates promised. The most enthusiastic proponents are middle-management, not actual doers. It's an expensive route to mediocrity, which doesnt offer an edge in a market where everyone is using the same snakeoil.
Unreliable mediocrity, because you simply can never be sure when the damned thing lies/hallucinates unless you double-check everything. So now you're wrangling an "AI" system and you're doing most of the work you would have had to anyway. ...And when you don't it can get really embarrassing. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/elite-wall-street-la... Not the first time, surely not the last. The problem is that so…
> the bag holders are going to be utterly doomed
Good news, the plan is for us to be the bag holders as they rush to IPO.
Re: The AI industry is discovering that the public hates it
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title of the original article feels like click-baiut to me. It's covering an act of violence under the pretext that people hate AI. In fact it's a very sad story about a 20 year old throwing their life away instead of fighting for what he believes is right through non-violent activism and/or regulations. Last year I wrote an article asking the very question "Who will be the next Luddites?", National Geographics f…
Non-violent means don't work and get you killed by cops. This is what the people are left with.
> Non-violent means don't work
MLK Jr.'s Civil Rights protests are an obvious counterpoint to this claim.