Our success in having the ability to generate sonnets in seconds will be seen in our future similar to the emperor commissioning golden statues whilst his people starved.
1. Fewer people working so fewer incomes
2. More ads to sell products to the fewer people who have incomes
3. A few people only getting rich (and buying all the stuff in the ads I guess?)
This makes no coherent sense.
Ads as a business model only make sense if there is a mass consumer market to sell stuff too. But if there are less people working and earning, ads by definition cannot be as effective.
No, we are going to see bigger changes and more radical changes than poorly thought-out dystopia scifi plots.
At the same time more people will be able to build on their ideas than ever. A few things that seem obvious to me would be:
- Private AI tutors that can go at a student's pace will revolutionise schooling (say goodbye to a teacher shortage anywhere)
- Helpdesk work will vanish
- Art will explode like nothing we've seen before. I'm already experimenting with writing stories in collaboration with AI and this is only the beginning.
- Numerous improvements in a huge number of machines and data analysis in particular will likely get much better.
- Due to widespread white collar work unemployment almost certain to be UBI's springing up all over the developed world.
- Far more workers will end up back in physical jobs of various types. Environmental clean up, farm work, construction, etc.
- Vastly more software will be built as the effective price of building will go way down.
- Robots is another area I'm interested in seeing what happens. My understanding is that building robot hardware that is useful is much easier than the software. So if this allows for much more rapid software development we couod see an explosion on robotics too.
I'm more certain of some of these than others but those are the ones off the top of my head. Out atm but you could also ask the Chatbot haha.
Yes? What is incoherent about this?
Especially when you consider that while some products are commodities you can just produce more of, a couple of important ones aren't: real estate, influence, power. Unless we change course, the latter will get concentrated on fewer and fewer hands, and maybe we get more of the former in return.
Perhaps there is a tipping point of unemployed people in the areas affected by AI where people outlaw some usage, funnel the funding, etc...
Perhaps the disappearing of "free" energy puts people back in the fields to ensure subsistence, and the few remaining intellectual tasks are automated to hell.
Perhaps this AI is astonishing us today before becoming boring and failing at the next hard task, buying us some time.
I think it's still very much in our power not to blindly follow decisions written automatically on a computer screen.
Don't give it a gun anytime soon, though.
Did digital art tools, compared to something like oil painting, destroy art as a field? No, there's more art and artists than ever.[1]
I believe the same thing is true for music.
I don't see AI replacing the artist or the author or the musician. I see AI enabling more artists and authors and musicians to produce even greater art.
[1] https://www.arts.gov/news/press-releases/2019/new-report-rev...
But protein folding with ai might be really helpful for the medical field. (Alpha fold). We also use it to score (rate basically) prospective crispr designs, which along with some other parameters
So it might not be a net negative.
Also, this phrase: <<medical system which administers these innovations remains so dysfunctional>> feel like someone writing from a US(-tainted) persepctive. Have you experienced well-functioning public health systems in other highly advanced countries? They are impressive.
I am not from the US but I think the US is a great case study in the disconnect between technological progress and improved general conditions (in particular for but not exclusively relating to healthcare). I think cynicism is the correct response to this trend.
That's not an argument, since the same thing can be said about anything else that does not solve world hunger, for example. Authors put energy into writing entertainment products while people starve.
As opposed to the metaverse [0], marvel movies [1], video games [2], soccer [3], or NFL [4]?
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-lost-30-billion-on-meta...
[1] https://bgr.com/entertainment/marvel-spent-over-1-billion-on...
[2] https://www.eurogamer.net/star-citizen-has-now-raised-more-t...
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/henryflynn/2022/11/27/qatar-has...
[4] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2022/...
AI research seems to have hit a lode that yields solutions to recognition and generation of texts and images. Good thing, but not something what could have been predicted, let alone planned, 20 years ago.
One of the solutions for world hunger, synthetic fertilizers, have been discovered by the same chemical research that produced explosives and poisons.
I think it makes perfect sense to get our act together before creating something that can be so potentially devastating, to reduce the likelihood of bad outcomes.
The development of AI requires careful consideration and planning, particularly in regards to potential negative outcomes. In contrast, the invention of the wheel was a relatively straightforward decision that did not carry the same level of risk.
I believe that's a political problem. See Corbevax for something with broader protection that's not restricted to spike proteins. Then figure out why we can't get it. AI can't solve that.
Indeed, all the major cash-flush companies doubled down on non medical, non quality of life improving technology.
People would like to hunt and gather, but people will start farming eventually
AI will probably vastly increase both rates of change, more for the rich than the poor, but things will be better in 20 years for the poor with AI than without it. They will just be even further behind the super rich than they were before, even if they're better off.
Some people would prefer a more equal but worse-for-everyone world. I'm not one of them, but I understand that it's a POV, and I can even semi-understand some of the arguments (sim to Communist talking pts, there's a real effect where people care more about how they rate vs other people rather than their absolute level of wealth/comfort). I fully reject them, but to each their own.
I work in climate tech and I think GPT-3 will be very helpful for us in researching new projects to tackle.
I tested it on a few subjects that we're working on and it provided really good feedback. It's not always correct, but neither are the humans we ask for feedback on projects. So that's one example of how GPT-3 can help with global issues.
Another issue is access to education. GPT-3 can speak many languages and can be used by people to learn things. Of course, it's not always right, but the same can be said for human teachers. For instance, my girlfriend is learning about financial instruments and will be using GPT-3 to help her. She has regular training materials, but it's also helpful to talk about the subject with someone.
Human teachers are great, but they're not always available and don't always respond quickly. So there you have it, two SDG goals, education and climate change, that GPT-3 can help with.
Still, it's comforting to know that the AI will be able to take over all tasks humans do eventually, hopefully the computer overlord will soon deem us unnecessary and we'll be able to follow in the footsteps of the dodo, the great auk, and all the other innocent critters we drove to extinction.
Imagine a guy like Putin with this kind of power. Why the heck would he need 120 million angry citizens when the robots can do EVERYTHING faster and better? Sure he will need a few concubines and keep a few family and friends...all the rest seem to be quite redundant...Same goes for Iran, China. I'd be surprised if there aren't American billionaires entertaining similar thoughts, us redundant masses suck up resources and pollute and create emissions. Robots don't have to eat and you won't need 8 billion of them.
It's important to have an understanding of the fundamentals of your task before relying on the tools to do the complex version of it, so you can reason about the next step and decide what the task is, not just how to do it.
It makes sense to use AI for those though. You don't really need AI to automate most of the tasks. Most of the work we do are basic tasks that can be easily automated with simple scripts or with some basic (but accurate) robotics.
So far advances like these have, historically, improved our life in terms of poverty, living conditions, schooling, and healthcare.
300 years ago, in Europe, most of the population lived as peasantry because somebody had to cultivate the farms. 2000 years ago in some place slaves made up 60% of the population.
Thinking that with AI only one dimension of our lives will change seems highly improbable to me. The printing press took way jobs from the scribes, but the revolution that book printing brought is one of the reason most people have electricity and tap water in their homes now.
So I'm more optimistic, I see AI being democratized and improving life overal in ways we can't imagine. There will be down-sides that we also can't imagine but there are a lot of down sides to how we live today.
AI compared to many other things has a far more plausible path to helping solve those issues.
Sure, it's true that humans on average are now better than 2000 years ago, but this doesn't mean it was always the case nor that this trend will continue. It's entire possible that the average human will be worse off in 100 years from now.
Further, humans will always value human labor, it’s an inherent bias. If a bot can automate something and do it better than us, then we will find something else it can’t do and then trade that thing.
Further, technology and humans are intertwined, you cannot separate the two. There’s no stopping this train so we should learn to embrace it and find creative ways to use it to our benefit.
At least that’s what puts me to sleep at night.
Furthermore, while technology and humans are intertwined, that doesn't mean we should just accept the negative consequences of technological progress without trying to mitigate them. We need to find ways to use technology to benefit all people, not just the wealthy few. This will require careful planning and coordination, as well as a willingness to consider alternative approaches to economic growth and development. Ignoring the problem and just hoping for the best is not a viable solution.
The problem here is this technology very obviously pro-wealth concentration since I can’t see a way which in the limit doesn’t make everybody need it to stay competitive.
(If you can’t tell it’s the real me, not the AI - the AI is so much better at plausible rants it isn’t even close)
On the other hand, the capitalistic view of humanity as creatures of pure self interest or the economic notion of people being rationalist utility maximizers are also deeply flawed.
A technology comes along, and people who are capable and able, will be cut out of the equation - whether that's truck drivers, coders, whoever.
But, the group at the top who own everything are fine. Perhaps, in the dim and distant past, some progenitor did something of note (though I suspect it was most likely a crime) and for that they are able to buy into whatever the technology is (AI, self-driving cars, etc) and increase their fortunes.
This is nothing to do with merit. This is simply leveraging a fortune to buy the future too - and it is not complicated.
I don't object to people making lots of money on merit, but the rent-seeking elites we have, who steer the world in the direction that best maintains their situation, making slaves of the rest of us, is terrible. I don't expect anyone to help either - the governance structures we have and bent to their benefit too.
The only answers in my book, are for people to embrace their individuality, look to themselves for answers, reject the governance system and consciously uncouple from the dystopian system. A system that shows every indication of becoming far more dystopian, with technocrats being able to manage every resource, for every individual, in every circumstance, in the near future. Also unfortunate, is the fact that I don't think people are capable of making any such change, nor do they really care as long as they are bound and being entertained.
PS
> we should instead focus more on quality of life outcomes. They’ve been better than ever and the trend is improving over time.
For me, the idea of 'continuous improvements' or 'better quality of life' is only a story. The utility of the story is that serves to support the idea that the current direction of travel is better than the rest. This narrative gets your buy in and investment - and you cannot complain too harshly about your harness, as - you believe - the present to be so good!
As long as the history is always smeared, this will always be true, right? But who can really know what the past was like? Who can say the past was actually worse, even if that's what present day records tell us?
To me, this is a bountiful world, with plenty for everyone. But if one group takes access to all the resources, with the presumed consent of the rest, the gaslighting can seem like the 'only way' or the 'right way'. The constraints to living freely are artificial - we are in an open-air prison - and most of us seem to be happy about it!
Please help connect with reality.
If you and I were on a desert island, and attempted to forcibly extract 40% of your foraging efforts, saying I was going to invest it for the greater good, you would probably rise up and attack me, finding the idea unacceptable.
Now, if I and 5 others did the same you might feel forced to accept the proposal. I hope you would agree that the idea of forcible extraction of your wealth is still not right. Well, at what point does it become right? How many people need to go along with forcible extraction to make it a just social contract?
The answer is - it is never right. Any time even one individual is forced, it is wrong. But its not a case of one individual - we are all infringed upon multiple times daily, even though we are doing no harm to anyone.
This is a perverse system, that will even try to mould and entrain its citizens, for the benefit of a tiny minority who would preserve their power. (Its not even about money for them, as they control the printing presses, and means of production.)
People will often say anarchy would ensue if this system stopped - we are better with the devil we know (a hierarchical governance structure, that restrains the individual). But, the truth is, while we choose this system we can never be free - this is a certainty. We choose to always be slaves, and to be ruled by the worst of us (psychopaths who are unburdened by care towards others) who rise to the top.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that if someone agrees with your comment, it is because they already know what you're talking about in the context of the world we live in. For those who do not know what you're talking about, your comment does not enlighten in the least.
Put another way, I can agree with everything you said in the abstract, and still not see what it has to do with reality. I can set up all kinds of hypotheticals involving islands, and have them all be logically correct, and yet have nothing to do with how the world really is.
Giving examples is a rather basic expository technique. I'm not here to philosophize.
In fact - this is something I hope for - to make a reasoned philosophical case - to provide a hypothesis that other individuals can test for themselves and see if they find it to be true (as I have). This is contrast to the feel good nonsense most believe, despite no evidence, and no personal verification.
I'm not sure what concrete connection you require. What is it you want? Names, places?
Perhaps you should take a look at my submission and comment history - I do sometimes go into more detail.
I want what you mention here:
> This is contrast to the feel good nonsense most believe, despite no evidence, and no personal verification.
Evidence. As I said: Giving examples is a rather basic expository technique.
Trends in wealth inequality - https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
Rich kids stay rich, poor kids stay poor - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rich-kids-stay-rich-poo...
How rent seeking is at the heart of America’s economic troubles - https://jpia.princeton.edu/news/something-nothing-how-growin...
I could go on there’s about a million articles about this. I’m sure you’ll find something to criticize but at this point it’s like denying climate change.
You probably believe in gravity, why? Are alternative explanations possible?
You probably believe in evolution, why? Or perhaps you believe in some religious texts, again why? Did you verify anything?
You probably believe in h2o, why? Have you put hydrogen and oxygen gases together to make water?
You probably don't believe in the aliens we saw in the film 'Independence Day', why? Is it because you were told it is fiction?
You probably do believe the world is getting warmer, and that we are in danger of a mass extinction event, why? How was this proven to you? If one scientist says something, is that proof? If 100 say the same thing, is that better proof?
Etc.
What measure do you use to filter the truth from noise, lies and reality? Is it just what you are told - do you doubt your lying eyes? Or is there internal discernment and primary experience is the gold standard?
Sure, but large portions of the economy are zero sum, including some of our basic needs (land for shelter).
AI is everywhere. It does boring tasks reliably and in a consistent way, without getting tired. It is present in medicine, science, manufacturing, IT, education, transportation, military, and for personal use.
AIs can read invoices, classify messages, unlock screen phones by face recognition, drive tractors and cars, fly drones, control the cooling system of a data center or the traffic lights in a city. The list is endless.
It's not used just for the creative bits. It raises the quality of life for the whole society by improving everything.
Furthermore, it's important to remember that the development and deployment of AI is not inevitable. It's up to us as a society to decide how we want to use this technology, and to ensure that its benefits are widely distributed. By working together, we can use AI to improve people's lives and create a better future for everyone.
That's progress, right?
These technologies are trained off of the fruits of the actual contributors, so the workers are being robbed. I haven't seen any componsation from AI learning off me. Have you?
No. AI to me is like basically like all technology. Lots of talk about how we will have a better life, be healthier, have more time to follow our passions, when the reality is more like we are more distracted, have superfluous human interactions, waste more of our (precious) time.
The technology, for me, is a tool of control. We have given up privacy, independence, opened ourselves up to distanced and automated control and sold our the future for a paycheck and an entertaining slave tracking device.
In addition to that any developer/coder who wants to remain competitive (and still employed in not so distant future) needs to start to learn how to use this tool right now - and this means paying up to the big corps who built and own models, even further empowering them and allowing to build bigger and more sophisticated tools
Sure, there can be some opensource attempts but: it will be used by corporations to advance further, cost of the required computing power may be forbidding
Coding is like woodwork. Deciding what to code could be art (maybe).
Also, this constant allusion to "the problems of the world" is rather vague and unconducive to a solution for them. If those problems bother you, work in those areas. Otherwise stop using the hunger of the world as a wildcard to discard the importance of everything you dislike or fear.
To a large extent so is suffering, deadly pollution, insanitary living conditions, and underfunded schools and healthcare.
So pretty much everyone is not working on these problems in a capacity that matters. If you want to be, you need to be in the realm of politics, not technology.
I beg to differ. Currency, weaponry, and agriculture are all technologies.
That said, my point is to not excuse technology. Currency and agriculture were both technical solutions to problems of poverty and starvation and I don't see a reason to exclude it from taking responsibility now.
[0] 'Secrets of Consulting', Gerald Weinberg
One could easily solve the problems you mentioned if you had abundant cheap energy and millions of cheap robots that efficiently distribute food/goods on the planet. A system that could keep track of resources of the planet and efficiently provide a minimum level of food, shelter, safety for everyone. There’d still be the gradient of “if you work hard and create value for others, you get to keep your gains”. However the taxes paid would create a minimum bar of opportunity access for everyone.
One could say that what we need is a resource driven economy instead of a simple capitalistic economy that yields to monopolies and too much power in few hands.
I can understand Artists having this viewpoint (they're less technically inclined and dare I say more susceptible to flights of imagination). I just see it from the Gary Kasparov viewpoint (humans + AI is a really great combo). At the very least, doesn't the fact that an AI an generate a kick ass CSS style sheet in 5 seconds that would take you 20 minutes give you more time to think about the big problems of the world?
What if AI can solve world hunger, but along the way we need to make Chatbots, so this Chatbot may be not useful now but it's an important milestone in something bigger? Sure it might be fulfilling to be the person to solve world hunger, but I'd rather an AI solved it instead hoping that a human also does it, but gets fulfilled along the way. Really your intellectual challenge is entirely selfish, no one really cares what intellectual challenge you solved besides the guy pairing with you.
Like I have seen many people lament how now that anyone can create art with Dall-e or Stable diffusion they won’t get paid, but many people using these AI would have never paid in the first place so in fact this will only increase the amount of art and art projects in the world. Sure the simplest projects will now be handled with AI, but you should see this as just another tool in your toolbox - just like people could learn how to use photoshop, but you still had your job so will you have it if you embrace the AI as assistant
Same with stories. Now you can leave minor details to the AI. Need a minor character? Just generate one and fill in the stuff you need to fit him into your story. I am excited to use AI for my next DND campaign just for this kind of filler detail that doesn’t really matter but makes the world more lived in and rich
The reason creative pursuits get tackled first is because they’re plentiful and pretty universal. The same person can develop an AI and admire a painting. This is not true of diagnosing disease.
It makes life more difficult each year by 3% (as was the wisdom on needed inflation), now each year 10% more difficult to get the same bread.
No wonder we see the gloom, disease and poverty brought by that policy all around us.
What AI has ‘solved’ so far: almost all the activities that humanity has found fun and life-fulfilling for hundreds, if not thousands, of years - creativity, art, writing, solving intellectual challenges.
As we accelerate ever-faster into a future dystopia of overlords (the richest 100 people in the world increased their collective wealth by 9% in 2021) while the rest of us are ground ever further into the dirt, I assume that AI will continue to steal the fulfilling parts of our lives from us, and leave us with the suffering and slavery.