AI Destroys Institutions
Working as intended. WONTFIX.
AI Destroys Institutions
91–100 of 165 posts
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar rhetoric was allways there with new technologies. Calculators, radio, cameras, phones, computers, smartphones, social networks... Regulations do more harm than learning process from mistakes.
Yes we have this before and everytime it was correct.
What was correct? That we became idiots with new tools?
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dismiss the paper for 3 reasons: 1. It is entirely based on speculation of what is going to happen in the future. 2. The authors have a clear financial (and status based) interest in the outcome. 3. I have a negative opinion of lawyers and universities due to personal experience. (This is, of course, the weakest point by far.) Speculation on future outcomes is not by itself a bad thing, but when that speculation is…
Yeah, I haven't gotten through the 40 pages myself, but skimming through the material, it does seem that the arguments rely on an assumption that AI will be employed in a particular manner. For example, when discussing the rule of law, they assert that AI will be making the moral judgments and will be a black box that humans will just turn to to decide what to do in criminal proceedings. But that seems like it would…
Nah we know the punch-lines to this one.
Worries about reduced quality of work are overblown, because there's always a human operator of the AI, reviewing the text between copying and pasting (no different from StackOverflow!). Enter vibe-coding.
Worries about AI becoming malicious or Skynet are overblown. Again, it's just a text interface, so the worst it can do is to write text that says "launch the nukes". Enter agents and MCP.
It still staggers me that I occasionally read about a judge calling out a lawyer for citing non-existent cases (this far into chatgpt's life). It was bound to happen to the first moron, but every other lawyer should have heard about it then. But it still happens.
Dumbest possible way is what we do.
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#94> free press Stopped reading here, as these people still believe in that fairytale of theirs.
The American press isn't perfectly free, but you should see what a state-controlled press is like.
Bezos, whatever the heck this is [1], you people are delusional.
Later edit: For good measure, Zuckerberg, too [2]
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#95This articles claims are also interesting to me in terms of large scale software systems. They authors say:
> They (AI systems) delegitimization knowledge, inhibit cognitive development, short-circuit long term thinking processes, and isolate humans by displacing or degrading long term human connection.
This is a pretty good summary of the worry I’ve seen expressed about extensive use to build large pieces of software. Large pieces of software aren’t just the code that describes them. They exist in some sense in their authors as well.
Effective projects seek to expand understanding of software systems across the organization so that relevant decisions can be made about their future. By relegating much of the decision making around structure of the software to AI you lose the systemic knowledge shared across the organization.
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes we have this before and everytime it was correct.
What was correct? That we became idiots with new tools?
>That we became idiots with new tools?
Yes, a little bit each time. But AI will finish the job.
Because earlier it was writing skills, or attention span that was at stake.
This time it is literally the ability to think.
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool, then we can safely give your comments exactly the same treatment - since they are completely uninformed speculation about a paper you haven't read.
Is he incorrect that the paper is speculating about future events? I don't think it's completely uninformed either. He said that he's read the abstract, which is supposed to give you an impression of the structure of the argument. Why don't you engage with the criticism?
There is no criticism. He did not read the paper.
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dismiss the paper for 3 reasons: 1. It is entirely based on speculation of what is going to happen in the future. 2. The authors have a clear financial (and status based) interest in the outcome. 3. I have a negative opinion of lawyers and universities due to personal experience. (This is, of course, the weakest point by far.) Speculation on future outcomes is not by itself a bad thing, but when that speculation is…
3. Same, including press that is no longer unbiased and serve as propaganda of political opinions. One might say that deinstitutionalization is actually good for plurality of opinions (some call it a democracy). If AI cause it, I'm fine with that.
And if AI leads to a situation in which the very ability to separate factual reporting from propaganda is almost entirely destroyed for anyone besides those in control of it, will you still be fine with it then?
Pointing to a system with problems and then saying you have no issue with something that has the potential to be orders of magnitude more problematic seems an odd approach to me.
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#99This is nothing but speculation written by lawyers in the format of a scientific paper to feign legitimacy. Of course those $500 an hour nitpickers are terrified of AI because it threatens the exorbitant income of their cartel protected profession.
Threatens income? It promises to reduce costs, which will lift profit.
Re: AI Destroys Institutions
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you may be confused. This is not a research paper, it's an op-ed in a law journal. SSRN is where most draft law review/journal articles are published, which may be the source of confusion. For most other fields, it is a source of draft/published science papers, but for law, it's pretty much any kind of article that is going to show up in a law review/journal.
It is literally called “ Boston Univ. School of Law Research Paper No. 5870623”
It's also an submission to UC hastings law journal, as it also says right before that?
The automated tagging with a BUSL ID is just how BUSL's system for papers of any sort works.
For reference: I did my first year of law school at BUSL so i'm very familiar with how it all works there :)
This is also very common elsewhere - everything that IBM used to release got tagged with a technical report number too, for example, whether it was or not.
In any case - it is clearly a piece meant to be persuasive writing, rather than deep research.
Law journals contain a mix of essentially op-eds and deeper research papers or factual expositories/kind of thing. They are mostly not like scientific journals. Though some exist that are basically all op-ed or zero op-ed.
Compare something like:
https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2...
Which is a piece in UC law journal meant as an informative piece cataloguing how california courts adjudicate false advertising law. It does not really take a position.
with
https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3...
Which is a piece in UC hastings law journal meant as, essentially an op ed, arguing that dog sniff tests are bullshit.
I picked both of these at random from stuff in UC hastings law journal that had been cited by the Supreme Court of California. There are things that are even more factual/take zero positions, and things that are even more persuasive writing/less researchy, than either of these, but they are reasonable representatives, i think