747
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
747 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
59148 readers
2306 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I used to be on the tecnocrat side too when I was younger, but seeing the detrimental effects of social media, the app-driven gig economy and how companies constantly charge more for less changed my mind. Technocrats adopt this idea that technology is neutral and constantly advancing towards an ideal solution for everything, that we only need to keep adding more tech and we'll have an utopia. Nevermind that so many advancements in automation lead to layoffs rather than less working hours for everyone.
I believe the debate is already happening, and the widespread disillusionment with tech tycoons and billionaires shows popular opinion is changing.
Very similar here, I used to think technology advancement was the most important thing possible. I still do think it's incredibly important, but we can't commercially do it for its own sake. Advancement/knowledge for the sake of itself must be confined to academia. AI currently can't hold a candle to human creativity, but if it reaches that point, it should be an academic celebration.
I think the biggest difference for me now vs before is that I think technology can require too high of a cost to be worth it. Reading about how some animal subjects behaved with Elon's Neuralink horrified me. They were effectively tortured. I refuse the idea that we should develop any technology which requires that. If test subjects communicate fear or panic that is obviously related to the testing, it's time to end the testing.
Part of me still does wonder, but what could be possible if we do make sacrifices to develop technology and knowledge? And here, I'm actually reminded of fantasy stories and settings. There's always this notion of cursed knowledge which comes with incredible capability but requires immoral acts/sacrifice to attain.
Maybe we've made it to the point where we have something analogous (brain chips). And to avoid it, we not only need to better appreciate the human mind and spirit -- we need people in STEM to draw a line when we would have to go too far.
I digress though. I think you're right that we're seeing an upswell of the people against things like this.
All the ills you mention are a problem with current capitalism, not with tech. They exist because humans are too fucking stupid to regulate themselves, and should unironically be ruled by an AI overlord instead once the tech gets there.
You are making the exact same mistake that I just talked about, that I have also made, that a bunch of tech enthusiasts make:
An AI Overlord will be engineered by people with human biases, under the command of people with human biases, trained by data with human biases, having goals that are defined with human biases. What you are going to get is tyranny with extra steps, plus some of its own concerning glitches on the side.
It's a sci-fi dream to assume technology is inherently destined to solve human issues. It takes human concern and humanites studies to apply technology in a way that actually helps people.
Even given the smartest, most perfect computer in the world, it can give people the perfect, most persuasive answers and people can still say no and pull the plug just because they feel like it.
The same is not even different among humans, the power to influence organizations and society entirely relies on the willingness of people to go along with it.
Not only this sci-fi dream is skipping several steps, steps where humans in power direct and gauge AI output as far as it serves their interests rather than some objective ultimate optimal state of society. Should the AI provide all the reasons that they should be in charge, an executive or a politician can simply say "No, I am the one in charge" and that will be it. Because to most of them preserving and increasing their own power is the whole point, even if at expense of maximum efficiency, sustainability or any other concerns.
But before you go fullblown Skynet machine revolution, you should realize that AIs that are limited and directed by greedy humans can already cause untold damage to regular people, simply by optimizing them out of industries. For this, they don't even need to be self-aware agents. They can do that as mildly competent number crunchers, completely oblivious of reality out of spreadsheets and reports.
And all this is assuming an ideal AI. Truly, AI can consume and process more data than any human. Including wrong data. Including biased data. Including completely baseless theories. Who's to say we might not get to a point AI decides to fire people because of the horoscope or something equally stupid?
Are you really trying to use failures of AI to try to argue that it's going to overcome humans? If we can't even get it to work how we want it too what makes you think people are just going to hand the keys of Society to it? How is an AI that keeps bursting into racist rants and emotional meltdowns going to take over anything? Does it sound like it is brewing some Master Plan? Why would people hand control to it? That alone shows that it presents all the flaws of a human, like I just pointed out.
Maybe you are too eager to debunk me but you are missing the point to nitpick. It doesn't really matter that we can't "pull the plug" on the internet, if that even was needed, all it takes to stop the AI takeover is that people in power just disregard what it says. It's far more reasonable to assume even those who use AIs wouldn't universally defer to it.
Nevermind that no drastic action is needed period. You said it yourself, Microsoft pulled the plug on their AIs. This idea of omnipresent self-replicating AI is still sci-fi, because AIs have no reason to seek to spread themselves, or ability to do so.
You are trying to argue in so many directions and technicalities it's just incoherent. AI will control everything because it's gonna be smarter, people will accept because they are dumb, and if the AI is dumb too that also works, but wasn't it supposed to be smarter? Anything that gets you to the conclusion you already started with.
I could be having deeper arguments of how an AI even gets to want anything, but frankly, I don't think you could meaningfully contribute to that discussion.