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

AI is different

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#601

Post by nerptastic »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #393
omnimus wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't underestimate what can happen if 1/3 of your workforce is displaced and put aside with nothing to do. People are usually obedient because they have something in life and they are very busy with work. So they don't have time or headspace to really care about politics. When suddenly big numbers of people start to more care about politics it leads to organizing and all kinds of political changes. What i mean…

I wouldn't underestimate how easily AI will suppress this through a combination of ultrasurveillance, psychological and emotional modelling, and personally targeted persuasion delivered by chatbot etc. If all else fails you can simply bomb city blocks into submission. Or arrange targeted drone decapitations of troublemakers. (Possibly literally.) The automation and personalisation of social and political control - an…

Speculating here, but I don't believe that the government would have the time or organization to do this. Widespread political unrest caused by job losses would be the first step. Almost as soon as there is some type of AI that can replace mass amounts of workers, people will be out on the streets - most people don't have 1-2 months of living expenses saved up. At that point, the government would realize that SHTF - but it's too late, people would be protesting / rioting in droves - doesn't matter how many drones you can produce, or whether or not you can psychologically manipulate people when all they want is... food.

I could be entirely wrong, but it feels like if AI were to get THAT good, the government would be affected just as much as the working class. We'd more likely see total societal collapse rather than the government maintaining power and manipulating / suppressing the people.

Re: AI is different

#602

Post by tbrownaw »

morsecodist wrote: post #541
jhbadger wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can already see this with YouTube: AI-generated videos are a mild amusement, not a replacement for video creators, because made by AI is becoming a negative label in a world where the presence of AI video is widely known. But that's because, at present, AI generated video isn't very good. Consider the history of CGI. In the 1990s and early 2000s, it was common to complain about how the move away from practical s…

I don't agree that it is because of the "quality" of the video. The issue with AI art is that it lacks intentional content. I think people like art because it is a sort of conversation between the creator and the viewer. It is interesting because it has a consistent perspective. It is possible AI art could one day be indistinguishable but for people to care about it I feel they would need to lie and say it was made b…

> The issue with AI art is that it lacks intentional content. I think people like art because it is a sort of conversation between the creator and the viewer.

Intent is in the eye of the beholder.

Re: AI is different

#603

Post by yoavm »

keiferski wrote: post #411

There’s a simple flaw in this reasoning: Just because X can be replaced by Y today doesn’t imply that it can do so in a Future where we are aware of Y, and factor it into the background assumptions about the task. In more concrete terms: if “not being powered by AI” becomes a competitive advantage, then AI won’t be meaningfully replacing anything in that market. You can already see this with YouTube: AI-generated vid…

Perhaps this will go the way the industrial revolution did? A knife handcrafted by a Japanese master might have a very high value, but 99.9% of the knives are mass produced. "Creators" will become artisans - appreciated by many, consumed by few.

Re: AI is different

#604

Post by throwaway314155 »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #470
throwaway314155 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm telling you right now, man - keep talking like this to people and you're going to make zero friends. However good your intentions are, you come across as both condescending and overconfident. And, for what it's worth - your position is clear, your evidence less-so. Deep learning is filled with mystery and if you don't realize that's what people are talking about when they say "we don't understand deep learning" -…

> I'm telling you right now, man - keep talking like this to people and you're going to make zero friends. And I'm telling you right now, man - when you fire off an ad hominem attack such as: I think the real issue here is understanding _you_. Don't expect the responder to engage in serious topical discussion with you, even if the response is formulated respectfully.

What I meant to say is that you were deliberately speaking cryptically and with a tone of confident superiority. I wasn't trying to imply you were stupid (w.r.t. "Ad Hominem").

Seems clear to me neither of us odd going to change the others mind though at this point. Take care.

edit edit to cindy: =======================••• fun trick. random password generate your new password. don't look at it. clear your clipboard. you'll no longer be able to log in and no one else will have to deal with you. ass hole ========================== (for real though someone ban that account)

Re: AI is different

#605

Post by kaindume »

> Regardless of their flaws, AI systems continue to impress with their ability to replicate certain human skills. Even if imperfect, such systems were a few years ago science fiction. It was not even clear that we were so near to create machines that could understand the human language, write programs, and find bugs in a complex code base: bugs that escaped the code review of a competent programmer.

If we factor in that LLMs only exist because of Google search, after they have indexed and collected all the data on the WWW than LLMs are not surprising. They only replicate what has been published on the web, even the coding agents are only possible because of free software and open-source, code like Redis that has been published on the WWW.

Re: AI is different

#606

Post by kortilla »

iwontberude wrote: post #600
m4nu3l wrote: post #595

>We are not there, yet, but if AI could replace a sizable amount of workers, the economic system will be put to a very hard test. Moreover, companies could be less willing to pay for services that their internal AIs can handle or build from scratch. Nor is it possible to imagine a system where a few mega companies are the only providers of intelligence: either AI will be eventually a commodity, or the governments wou…

I think the bigger relief is that I know humans won’t put up with a two tiered system of haves and have nots forever and eventually we will get wealth redistribution. Government is the ultimate source of all wealth and organization, corporations are built on top of it and thus are subservient.

Governments are not the source of wealth. They are just a requisite component to allow people to create it and maintain it.

Re: AI is different

#607

Post by 1970-01-01 »

We will continue to have poor understanding of LLMs until a simple model can be constructed and taught to a classroom of children. It is only different in this aspect. It is not magic. It is not intelligent. Until we teach the public exactly what it is doing in a way simple adults will understand, enjoy hot take after hot take.

Re: AI is different

#608

Post by m4nu3l »

iwontberude wrote: post #600
m4nu3l wrote: post #595

>We are not there, yet, but if AI could replace a sizable amount of workers, the economic system will be put to a very hard test. Moreover, companies could be less willing to pay for services that their internal AIs can handle or build from scratch. Nor is it possible to imagine a system where a few mega companies are the only providers of intelligence: either AI will be eventually a commodity, or the governments wou…

I think the bigger relief is that I know humans won’t put up with a two tiered system of haves and have nots forever and eventually we will get wealth redistribution. Government is the ultimate source of all wealth and organization, corporations are built on top of it and thus are subservient.

Having your life dependent on a government that controls all AIs would be much worse. The government could end up controlling something more intelligent than the entire rest of the population. I have no doubt it will use it in a bad way. I hope that AIs will end up distributed enough. Having a government controlling it is the opposite of that.
Post reply on HN