And remember, these AI models were trained on your work, your culmination of effort and sacrifice, without any consent, credit, or compensation, then sold back to you for a subscription fee.
I would like to say "let's see how that goes". But I'm afraid I don't quite trust that "things will just go well". At least not nearly as fast as A(G)I development is happening. I feel fortunate that I don't worry about this too much personally, but I fear for our economy, laid off (office) workers, their families, in a few months and years. What am I to do? How can we fix this? Am I exaggerating?
The public needs to own AGI, not be given a small allowance from it.
UBI would make us dependent on the grace and generosity of those who have proven themselves to have neither.
Obviously that can only work in a real democracy that is really controlled by everybody, not a fake one where you technically vote but it's really controlled by rich people. That's oligarchy.
If they are in control of superhuman abundance machines, where does the money paid out come from if not them?
What would it do to a democratic society if a few people have control over this machine god? How would that society be able to do anything (including raise taxes to pay for UBI) that the owners of productive force disagree with? What leverage does it have?
Once control over AGI is centralized, whoever controls it can just tell a democratic state to kick rocks and because of the dependence they've built, there's nothing the state could do about it.
In other words, once you have this sort of power centralized in a few people, democratic rule over them becomes a polite fiction they go along with as long as it's not too inconvenient at best.
I don't think you can have a real democracy unless society owns AGI. If rich people control AGI, they control society.
It can be an implementation detail once we have public control of AGI. But the public control is the important part, otherwise its just another mechanism of control.
Or try another way. When everyone loses their jobs to AI and can't pay taxes will the billion and trillilnares who are still rich volunteer to fund UHI? (How did the California billionaire tax to fund healthcare go?)
Idk if that’s much better
This is conflating care that every human can thrive their best with desire to see everyone bound to some dominance strategy of hieratic pissing territory.
When peoples livelihoods are copied then used to threaten them with their work being rug pulled then shockingly enough people's behaviour changes.
Previously giving your data was treated as relatively harmless or a niche concern. Now people are treating it as a bigger issue and obsessing over not having data being used to train AI.
This would have more merit if the owners and investors of major AI companies suddenly adopted a philosophy of rejecting private property and capitalism. That way I could believe we can let go of this "dominance strategy of hieratic pissing territory".
But if they don't, and they merely try to convince us that we should let go of the obsession with owning things and getting paid, I'll be suspicious. People who own a lot telling others they shouldn't worry that much about money and owning things.
Yes, but automating and commercializing a process makes it inherently different. Just because everyone has always been welcome to drink from the village well, that countless generations have worked tirelessly to dig, maintain, and improve, doesn't mean that there's no basis for complaint when Nestle sticks a pump down it and starts draining the aquifer to bottle and sell.
The lack of an existing law (or custom) against new behavior doesn't actually render it necessarily non-grotesque.
Nestle can pump out infinite amount of water from their many wells, much more than before, which is great, but Nestle also become the sole water supply and unregulated. Obviously, people cannot go without water, so they are at the whims of Nestle. Now, is this a good thing?
OpenAI's Navier-Stokes finding is closer to Crick and Watson in respect of Franklin's research than conventional science.