What makes you think AIs will have interests that align with each other more closely than they align with humans?
857 karma · joined August 11, 2020
If they want to stick to their "the end is nigh!" shtick it doesn't really bother me.
But when the pessimists and cynics show so clearly on such a large scale that they aren't uniformly wise or competent, it will allow more levelheaded perspectives towards LLMs and a more general cautious optimism be the guiding philosophy around developing these tools.
I'd rather have someone like Altman leading the charge on bringing AI to market as it is at least clear he has thought about and understands the risks. A lot of people who are criticising him appear it be in the "Don't pursue AI at all" camp which is the wrong call imo as it looks to be an enormous productivity and technology enhancer with the potential for clear benefits (already visible in things like personalised tutoring).
And he did VC fund-raising before that for early projects too. Give his Wikipedia a read.
He is clearly a very savvy businessman and smooth operator on a personal level. And has been involved in enough high profile successes that I don't think it is a fluke.
> Answer is that won’t happen. The point being most sane people will wait around to see if anything really changes. Why wouldn’t they, what do they even have to lose by waiting?
Not saying it will happen but I'd honestly say this would be the least of the issues. VC's and established companies would be fighting tooth and nail to invest money in whatever venture Sam Altman/Greg Brockman + whatever % of staffers were launching. Money would not be the problem here. Think of how much money so many were willing to throw at the con-job that the vast majority of crypto was and then think of how much money they would throw at AI tools (which are clearly a big deal already).
The loss of the ability to make large amounts of stuff at a certain point becomes a national security issue.
What really shook me is that GPT-4 can spit out quite solid code for various things. I know there is a lot more to software development than just writing code but if you had asked me 3 years ago if AI would be able to code AT ALL within 10 years I would have said "no chance" with 100% certainty. Had to accept I was very wrong about that and don't have the technical background to really assess how far/fast this stuff can go.
If AI advances to the point where large swathes of workers even amongst developers are put out of work, then worrying about your own job is a little beside the point. Will be a large and apparent social issue then. I am still skeptical this will happen but if you had asked me 3 years ago could AI do what it is capable of already by today I would have said with 100% certainty there is not chance so I'm holding back my opinion at this point.
Why do Amazon have a monopoly on this? Is it because they are engaging in anti-competitive practices preventing competitors from offering the same thing or do they just have the best logistics expertise and setup in the industry?
That's a genuine question btw because it matters a lot for whether or not regulation/the state should attempt to resolve it.
So somewhat ironically, if the USA/West wins their political battle to liberalise China, China would almost certainly become the dominant nation within the "Western/Modern" coalition.
If people are buying in an area and that drives up prices because it shows the area is valuable, in what conditions would your land not be worth a similar (ish) value?
I think in this scenario there'd be a couple of options:
1. The land is worth a lot. If that is the case, you should be able to sell it reasonably easily.
2. The land is worth very little. In that case the tax would be insignificant because the land has so little value.
I can honestly only assume you are trolling me at this point if you're bouncing between calling people "Devine" (do you mean "Divine"?) and parasites and thinking you have anything worthwhile to say.
This is nasty language however you put it and you're certainly talking in a way that makes me think that you DO think you are "better" than this person. But you should be careful, I know plenty of "achieving people" who gave their parents or society this or that and ended up with kids with troubles who under your definition "live as parasitical mooches contributing nothing to the human experience".
Would you like people casting those kind of comments at your own kids in future when they don't know a thing about the struggles they may have been through? Because I'm sorry but claiming you empathise with someone and then calling them a "parasitical mooch" out the other side of your mouth makes me think you don't truly empathise with them at all.
On the other hand, so much work that does occur these days is incredibly frivolous and debatable if it adds social value at all. Let's take Video games for example. It is now a larger industry than movie or music combined. And the stereotypical drop-out is the "lives in parents basement playing video games" dude. But if that is a waste of life and mooching, shouldn't we also turn our eyes to the people/companies making these games? If playing game is a waste of life, what does that say about those making them? But these people are never spoken about in such terms.
The same logic can apply to music industry, movie industry, sports industry, tourism industry, etc.
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/megadeals
Shows the companies that receive subsidies and how much. I will note that Tesla isn't close to being the largest recipient of subsidies but recieves by far the most outrage.
Fortnite is an immensely popular game people search for to buy, whereas malware etc are almost by definition not something you think "gee whiz, might go buy that".
For the type of user being discussed it seems very simple to just say/have a setting of "only allow downloads from official app store" combined with the above. Although tbh this may all be rendered moot by AI LLM security style tools that can actively monitor and prevent users from doing stuff like this.
So users can lockdown the ability to install stuff if they want without overcoming various hurdles (maybe allow users to add customised message so if a user tries to do it a message will pop-up saying "Your Son/Daughter/whoever has said you should never disable this! Call them before doing this if someone has asked you to!").
I feel like there is so many options/info hidden from consumers about their devices that really shouldn't be. And preventing it or hiding it only really serves the companies themselves, not the end user.
Worrying about second order effects here considering the current situation is like saying:
We're worried that removing our heel from the throat of the user might allow all sorts of things to go down there, some of which might be dangerous.
Maybe this will happen in some cases but we can be fairly confident it will also help the user to breathe.
I have swung back around and now buy many physical books/blurays/etc for things I really love or think are important because my faith that companies/govt won't decide I cant have that version anymore is very low.