Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement • Hacker News Board

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#41

Post by ladzoppelin » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:56 AM UTC

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…

"Every underprivileged child could have a personalized tutor." Tutor for what, prompt engineering? The impact of this on the kids is hard to fathom and just because "similar" advancements in the past opened up doors does not mean this one will as well.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#42

Post by bugglebeetle » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:58 AM UTC

yinser wrote: post #37

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…

A train is approaching on the tracks, on one track you create free energy, solve diseases, create a new dawn for human ingenuity and also some white collar jobs are removed, others are created. On the other track we continue to toil in the dirt.

The answer to this entirely depends on who it is gets to hop on board the “free energy, solves diseases” train. If the tracks continue on the current American path of widening inequality and declining lifespans, I’m sure plenty of people would be happy to see the whole thing derail.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#43

Post by Taywee » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:58 AM UTC

yinser wrote: post #37

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…

A train is approaching on the tracks, on one track you create free energy, solve diseases, create a new dawn for human ingenuity and also some white collar jobs are removed, others are created. On the other track we continue to toil in the dirt.

How many jobs lost and how many created?

On this track, we continue to toil in the dirt, unless we figured out how to automate all the farming too. In fact, it looks like we're automatic all the fulfilling jobs and only leaving toil for the humans.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#44

Post by sterlind » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:58 AM UTC

Taywee wrote: post #22

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…

The last time we saw a copyright struggle like this was Napster. After a lot of ire we eventually landed on Spotify, shows, and merch. Musicians seem fine this time around, but graphic designers are in for a world of hurt. Artists and musicians mostly already starve, unless they're extremely lucky and famous.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#45

Post by edgefield » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:58 AM UTC

yinser wrote: post #37

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…

A train is approaching on the tracks, on one track you create free energy, solve diseases, create a new dawn for human ingenuity and also some white collar jobs are removed, others are created. On the other track we continue to toil in the dirt.

I am for the jobs that AI will provide!

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#46

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:59 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…

> what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers

They find better things. Maybe agitating for a different economic system. Some countries will fail horribly at this. In any case, LLMs aren't coming for most writers or coders or scientists or medical researchers. They will help with our credentialing fetish.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#47

Post by doug_durham » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:59 AM UTC

mftb wrote: post #27

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.

I’m in your same demographic. However I see these technologies as career extenders, not career threats. I can learn things faster than ever and adapt to changes more easily.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#48

Post by JenrHywy » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:59 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #46

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…

> what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers They find better things. Maybe agitating for a different economic system. Some countries will fail horribly at this. In any case, LLMs aren't coming for most writers or coders or scientists or medical researchers. They will help with our credentialing fetish.

Ah yes - what the world really need is less artists and more activists.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#49

Post by georgemcbay » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 2:59 AM UTC

yinser wrote: post #37

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…

A train is approaching on the tracks, on one track you create free energy, solve diseases, create a new dawn for human ingenuity and also some white collar jobs are removed, others are created. On the other track we continue to toil in the dirt.

Are as many jobs created as lost? People always assume this because it's been true in the past, but is that really enough reason to believe it will always be true going forward, especially when a technology threatens to upend so many types of jobs across so many industries all close to simultaneously?

And even if it were true, what's the quality of those new jobs? Sitting in front of a command line engineering "prompts"? Sounds more like a particularly dystopian sci-fi story than a bright future.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#50

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 3:00 AM UTC

Taywee wrote: post #43

yinser wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A train is approaching on the tracks, on one track you create free energy, solve diseases, create a new dawn for human ingenuity and also some white collar jobs are removed, others are created. On the other track we continue to toil in the dirt.

How many jobs lost and how many created? On this track, we continue to toil in the dirt, unless we figured out how to automate all the farming too. In fact, it looks like we're automatic all the fulfilling jobs and only leaving toil for the humans.

> we continue to toil in the dirt, unless we figured out how to automate all the farming

Who, on this forum, is forced "to toil in the dirt" for subsistence?