AI/Automation Megathread

Reader mode
Zyobot said:
Plus, if it becomes open-source, you’ll need some massive internet censorship to prevent it from staying up or spreading far and wide. At that point, I think policy implications will go well beyond attempting to outlaw AI alone, since it’d afford the government the power to both crack down on free speech and use it as precedent to, say, go after shareable blueprints for 3D-printed guns, for example.

Personally, I wonder if you could have tech-savvy Libertarians and miscellaneous “Crypto-anarchist” communities inventing creative ways to counter mainstream AI, or perhaps engineer one of their own? While they’re off to a rough start, they’re already making use of cryptocurrency and 3D printing, so if they find ways to live with or invalidate AI that the Establishment will go all-in on, anyway, we should certainly consider that.
Click to expand...
People are already doing open-source LLMs you can run locally if you have a powerful GPU and Python.

www.listendata.com

Open Source GPT-4 Models Made Easy

This tutorial includes the workings of the Open Source GPT-4 models, as well as their implementation with Python.
www.listendata.com www.listendata.com

OpenAI seriously want hard limits to be set on high-end consumer GPU hardware to prevent open-source AI from taking off, because they explicitly don't want people brewing "Based and Redpilled AI" in their basements.

OpenAI Proposes Government Restrict AI Chips to Prevent Propaganda Explosion

Taking these tools and distributing their power to the maximum number of people is the only way to truly democratize AI. We cannot allow control over AI to become centralized because it will lead to an end to our privacy, our rights, and our fundamental freedoms.

Yinko said:
Like it or not, neo-luddites will arise from this. How influential they are, how violent they are? Who can say. If AI takes a significant enough fraction of the jobs over a 5 year period then there will be mass unrest, no question. In some countries that unrest would probably lead to some combination of overthrowing the government / civil war / total anarchy. I mean, look at France, where they burn down half of Paris for raising the age of retirement by a year or two, and now lay off 15% of all educated workers.
Click to expand...

The winners of this game will be the people who successfully set up their own personal AI agents to automate their own work for them, thus turning their desktop computers into money printers.

 
hyperspacewizard said:
Yeah no thats insane incredible immoral and isn’t a real solution anyway because you wouldn’t get all of them or it. in reality we are just going to have to live with it and deal.
Click to expand...

And your push to have human civilization run off a cliff is even more immoral and insane.
 
DarthOne said:
Don’t tempt me
Click to expand...
Not what I meant. If you're serious about wanting to kill who knows how many programmers over this, that doesn't make you a hero trying to save humanity. It makes you a threat to it; one that, by your own logic, must be stopped by any means necessary. So, when I say "you first", I mean you die first; because that's the door you're opening with that sort of rhetoric.
 
DarthOne said:
And your push to have human civilization run off a cliff is even more immoral and insane.
Click to expand...
Human civilization is already running off a cliff. Most of our GDP gains of the past few decades came from technological advancements that are rapidly plateauing as discovering new knowledge becomes more and more difficult. The only way to keep the gravy train going is to build machines that can make scientific breakthroughs on their own, more efficiently than people can. Even still, due to aging workforces and low birth rates, governments around the world are rapidly becoming insolvent and incapable of keeping up with the basic demands of pensions, welfare, healthcare, and so on. The only way to save this system is quite literally to invent a godlike AI and then have it invent immortality drugs for everyone so no one needs to retire anymore and the strain on the healthcare system is nil. If you don't want that, and many people don't, then a clean break is necessary.
 
DarthOne said:
Nothing that extreme. It’s more of a matter of putting a hard stop on any future development and rolling back AI development by, say, a few years. And making sure it stays that way. By any means necessary.

And why do we ‘need’ this technology? Whose going to develop it futher? Russia and China spend most of their time stealing our the West’s digital technology just to keep even. And if they or any other nation aren’t willing to cease Artificial Intelligence development…well, we make sure we hammer them flat before they get a chance to.

Advanced Artificial Intelligence is a death sentence to the human race. And to anything remotely like a free society. It must be put to a stop.
Click to expand...

It's hard for me to fathom just how comprehensively wrong you are here.

Have you been reading too much science fiction lately or something?
 
Prince Ire said:
So apparently the Yang Gang was right all along about AI taking our jobs
Click to expand...
I don't think that was ever really in doubt, outside a few fanatics and the willfully blind. AI and Automation have always reduced jobs, it's just that for a long time, instead of reducing total employment they reduced wages (The NBER study I linked to upthread concluded that 50-70% of all wage losses in the US since 1970* were caused by automation, the rest by globalism) so it was relatively easy to obfuscate for a while.

A couple of years back during the COVID lockdowns I lost my job and then took over for a retiring janitor's business. One thing that stood out to me was the banks, where two-thirds of the offices only needed dusting once a week because nobody ever used them. He told me thirty years ago when he started, all those offices were full every day. I fail to believe that this reduction was because the banking sector has shrunk and become less important over time.


*When computers started to enter the workplace, coincidentally also when real wages peaked and they immediately began dropping as soon as automation and AI became a thing.
 
LordsFire said:
This is also when women becoming employed full time started to become a cultural norm. Don't underestimate the effects that roughly doubling the labor force has on wages.
Click to expand...
No, your history is way off.

By 1950 almost half of all American women were already in the workforce. This failed to have the depressing effect you claim and wages kept increasing. In fact, as noted in that link, the participation rate leveled out and quit increasing in 1970, exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
 
This chart should help a bit. Note that the scale is borked, it ends at 25% so growth appears much higher than it really is by percentage.

iu


Female workplace participation was already at about 43% by 1970. It had effectively no growth until 1974 and by 1980 had increased to only about 53%, and it peaked at around 57% near 2000. Further, male participation dropped by a similar amount so the total number of people working didn't go up a lot, from 1970-1980 perhaps three percent total. That's not remotely enough to explain the massive wage losses since then, especially since all job participation has been in the decline for the past 20 years and yet wages haven't spiked to account for this reduced supply.
 
Bear Ribs said:
No, your history is way off.

By 1950 almost half of all American women were already in the workforce. This failed to have the depressing effect you claim and wages kept increasing. In fact, as noted in that link, the participation rate leveled out and quit increasing in 1970, exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
Click to expand...

'Participation' without a metric for hours included is meaningless.

Even before WWII a fair number of women worked part time jobs, and some even full time. This wasn't considered strange.

The big cultural shift in the latter half of the 20th century was the denigration of the 'stay at home mom,' and the cultural normalization of women working full time and having professional careers.

I'm not saying this is a be-all end-all to shifts in wages. I'm just saying it's an important factor to include.
 
LordsFire said:
'Participation' without a metric for hours included is meaningless.

Even before WWII a fair number of women worked part time jobs, and some even full time. This wasn't considered strange.

The big cultural shift in the latter half of the 20th century was the denigration of the 'stay at home mom,' and the cultural normalization of women working full time and having professional careers.

I'm not saying this is a be-all end-all to shifts in wages. I'm just saying it's an important factor to include.
Click to expand...
Show us your proof then, and how big a factor this was compared to the multiple studies I've already linked.
 
LordsFire said:
It's hard for me to fathom just how comprehensively wrong you are here.

Have you been reading too much science fiction lately or something?
Click to expand...
The fact that you think humanity will be just fine if such a massive game changer is allowed to develop makes me think your the one reading too much science fiction. Things are barely holding on to this side of sanity as it is.
 
www.dailymail.co.uk

Google CEO says he doesn't 'fully understand' how new AI program works

Google's CEO Sundar Pichai admitted he doesn't 'fully understand' how the company's new AI program Bard works, as a new expose shows some of the kinks are still being worked out.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Google CEO says he doesn't 'fully understand' how new AI program Bard works after it taught itself a foreign language it was not trained to and cited fake books to solve an economics problem


Can we panic now?!
 


Scientists in New Mexico are giving dead birds a new life with an unconventional approach to wildlife research — converting them into drones
Click to expand...

And this completely won't be used for covert surveillance against citizens by Big Government…
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top