It’s not going to. Saying all AI should stop is like saying “all gunpowder should stop”. Would everyone be better off if no one was using it? Maybe. But that’s not going to happen at this point, and will give you a strategic disadvantage if you unilaterally disarm.
And to be clear I’m not talking about using AI to write a screenplay or something creative, I mean like using it to write software, to optimize industrial processes etc.
I bet me and the person I’m responding to have a ton in common. Likewise me and the person who wrote that post. But I don’t relate to the position of “all AI should stop.”
I think there should be democratically accountable AI development. I’m interested in open source but the problem with it is that private corporations take advantage of it until they get big enough to try to lock out competitors. (See Google with Android) I would love to see an “open source” license which allows use by individuals and democratic entities, but forbids use by private enterprise.
Unless you want to vouch for the rant site’s claim that AI is necessary for civilization and existence, you have almost nothing in common with his fearmongering. And if you do believe that, that is disappointing.
I don’t see it as fear mongering. What do you think of open source software like Linux, Firefox, VLC and so on? Because a similar argument is made there - we need to use these tools day to day, and the only option being to pay a corporation to use them would make us literally poorer, and we also wouldn’t have the features and quality we see in Windows, Mac, Chrome etc if there weren’t open source competitors.
Is lack of open source AI currently a civilizational existential threat? No. Could it be if current trends continue? Potentially. Things could get pretty dystopian if only the mega rich control tools with ultra-intelligence.
There are some open models right now, but they’re mostly ones created by private enterprise that were released to the public. Creating models is more resource intensive than making open source software. So it makes sense to pool resources for the public good.
Is lack of open source AI currently a civilizational existential threat? No. Could it be if current trends continue? Potentially. Things could get pretty dystopian if only the mega rich control tools with ultra-intelligence.
“Could”, “potentially,” what-ifs. CEOs and actual cult leaders like Eli Yudkowsky have spoonfed the narrative to gullible journalists and politicians.
Yeah, it’s in AI companies interest to hype how all powerful their product is. I’m not necessarily talking about that.
When I say potentially, I’m not a doomer, so not trying to say there’s no hope, I do think we can make the world better than it is.
That said, one example of dystopian future: one of my clients makes networked security cameras. I saw a presentation where they were showing off their AI search capability. They had a static shot of an expressway, with hours of footage, and they said “I want to find a person in a bus wearing a brown shirt” and just like that pulled up the relevant moment. Not something you want an authoritarian to have. They’re going to get it anyways. But would love to have similar power available to the people.
Likewise when you think about accumulation of capital, which is shorthand for accumulation of power. AI will allow elites to accelerate that accumulation and have less use for people. “Who cares if you go on strike? I don’t need you.”
Having open source AI can turn the tables: “Who cares if you raised the price? I’ll make it myself.”
It’s not going to. Saying all AI should stop is like saying “all gunpowder should stop”. Would everyone be better off if no one was using it? Maybe. But that’s not going to happen at this point, and will give you a strategic disadvantage if you unilaterally disarm.
And to be clear I’m not talking about using AI to write a screenplay or something creative, I mean like using it to write software, to optimize industrial processes etc.
“All AI should stop” is a far more reasonable opinion than the one presented by the
websiteblog9-sentence rant linked above.You have far more in common with the person you’re pushing back on than the author of the rant.
I bet me and the person I’m responding to have a ton in common. Likewise me and the person who wrote that post. But I don’t relate to the position of “all AI should stop.”
I think there should be democratically accountable AI development. I’m interested in open source but the problem with it is that private corporations take advantage of it until they get big enough to try to lock out competitors. (See Google with Android) I would love to see an “open source” license which allows use by individuals and democratic entities, but forbids use by private enterprise.
Unless you want to vouch for the rant site’s claim that AI is necessary for civilization and existence, you have almost nothing in common with his fearmongering. And if you do believe that, that is disappointing.
I don’t see it as fear mongering. What do you think of open source software like Linux, Firefox, VLC and so on? Because a similar argument is made there - we need to use these tools day to day, and the only option being to pay a corporation to use them would make us literally poorer, and we also wouldn’t have the features and quality we see in Windows, Mac, Chrome etc if there weren’t open source competitors.
Is lack of open source AI currently a civilizational existential threat? No. Could it be if current trends continue? Potentially. Things could get pretty dystopian if only the mega rich control tools with ultra-intelligence.
There are some open models right now, but they’re mostly ones created by private enterprise that were released to the public. Creating models is more resource intensive than making open source software. So it makes sense to pool resources for the public good.
Ah, the fear of the potential thing as described by the ultra-rich.
Why do you trust them to be the ones who shape your fears?
I don’t think you’re engaging with what I’m saying sincerely, and I’m trying to do that with you.
I was responding directly to this.
“Could”, “potentially,” what-ifs. CEOs and actual cult leaders like Eli Yudkowsky have spoonfed the narrative to gullible journalists and politicians.
Why do you trust them?
Yeah, it’s in AI companies interest to hype how all powerful their product is. I’m not necessarily talking about that.
When I say potentially, I’m not a doomer, so not trying to say there’s no hope, I do think we can make the world better than it is.
That said, one example of dystopian future: one of my clients makes networked security cameras. I saw a presentation where they were showing off their AI search capability. They had a static shot of an expressway, with hours of footage, and they said “I want to find a person in a bus wearing a brown shirt” and just like that pulled up the relevant moment. Not something you want an authoritarian to have. They’re going to get it anyways. But would love to have similar power available to the people.
Likewise when you think about accumulation of capital, which is shorthand for accumulation of power. AI will allow elites to accelerate that accumulation and have less use for people. “Who cares if you go on strike? I don’t need you.”
Having open source AI can turn the tables: “Who cares if you raised the price? I’ll make it myself.”