7 ms·

Agreed! The only silver lining I can see is that a new perspective may be forced on how well or badly we’ve facilitated learning, usability, generally navigati

by maegul 1y ago

Agreed! The only silver lining I can see is that a new perspective may be forced on how well or badly we’ve facilitated learning, usability, generally navigating pain points and maybe even all the dusty presumptions around the education / vocational / professional-development pipeline. Before, demand for employment/salary pushed people through. Now, if actual and reliable understanding, expertise and quality is desirable, maybe paying attention to how well the broader system cultivates and can harness these attributes can be of value. Intuitively though, my feeling is that we’re in some cultural turbulence, likely of a truly historical magnitude, in which nothing can be taken for granted and some “battles” were likely lost long ago when we started down this modern-computing path.

bruce511 1y ago
To be fair, LLMs are just the most recent step in a long road of doing the same thing. At any point of progress in history you can look backwards and forwards and the world is different. Before tractors a man with an ox could plough x field in y time. After tractors he can plough much larger areas. The nature of farming changes. (Fewer people needed to farm more land. ) The car arrives, horses leave. Computers arrive, the typing pool goes away. Typing was a skill, now everyone does it and spell checkers hide imperfections. So yeah LLMs make "drawing easier". Which means just that. Is that good or bad? Well I can't draw the old fashioned way so for me, good. Cooking used to be hard. Today cooking is easy, and very accessible. More importantly good food (cooked at home or elsewhere) is accessible to a much higher % of the population. Preparing the evening meal no longer starts with "pluck 2 chickens" and grinding a kilo of dried corn. So yeah, LLMs are here. And yes things will change. Some old jobs will become obsolete. Some new ones will appear. This is normal, it's been happening forever.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- thankyoufriend 1y ago
  The difference between GenAI and your examples is a theft component. They stole our data - your data - and used it to build a machine that diverts wealth to the rich. The only equitable way for GenAI to move forward is if we all own a share of it, since it would not exist in its current form without our data. GenAI should be a Universal Basic Asset.
  - bruce511 1y ago
    I appreciate the idealism but your argument has some flaws. Firstly the "theft component" isn't exactly new. There have always been rich and poor. Secondly everyone is standing on the shoulders of giants. The Beatles were influenced by the works of others. Paul and John learned to write by mimicking other writers. That code you right is the pinicle of endless work dine by others. By Ada Lovelace, and Charles Babbage, and Alan Turing and Brian Kernigan and Denis Ritchie and Doug Englebart and thousands and thousands more. By your logic the entire output of all industries for all foreseeable generations should be universally owned. [1] But that's not the direction we have built society on. Rather society has evolved in the US to reward those who create value out of the common space. The oil in Texas doesn't belong to all Texans, it doesn't belong to the pump maker, it belongs to the company that pumps the oil. Equally there's no such thing as 'your data'. It's your choice to publish or not. Information cannot be 'owned'. Works can be copyrighted, but frankly you have a bigger argument on that front going after Google (and Google Books, not to mention the Internet Archive) than AI. AI may train on data you produced, but it does not copy it. [1] I'm actually for a basic income model, we don't need everyone working all day like it's 1900 anymore. That means more taxes on companies and the ultra wealthy. Apparently voters disagree as they continue to vote for people who prefer the opposite.
    - sirwhinesalot 1y ago
      I think your last point is very reductionist. Nearly every country ends up in a voting situation where only 2 parties can realistically win. A diverse parlament results in paralysis and the fall of government (happened in my home country multiple times). The two parties that end up viable tend to be financed quite heavily by said wealthy, including being proped by the media said wealthy control. The more right wing side will promise tax cuts (also for the poor that don't seem to materialize) while the more left wing side will promise to tax the rich (but in an easily dodgeable way that only ends up affecting the middle class). Many people understand this and it is barely part of the consideration in their vote. The last election in the US was a social battle, not really an economic one. And I think the wealthy backers wanted it that way.
- ako 1y ago
  The scare for most people is that AI isn't better tools, but outsourced work. In the past we would create our own products, now other countries do this. In the past we did our own thinking and creative activities, now LLMs will. If we don't have something better to do we'll all be at home doing nothing. We all need jobs to afford living, and already today many have bullshit jobs. Are we going to a world where 99.9% of the people need a bullshit job just to survive?
  - bruce511 1y ago
    Personally I think your basic premise is false, hence your conclusion is false. >> We all need jobs to afford living In many countries this is already not true. There is already enough wealth that there is enough for everyone. Yes, the western mindset is kinda "you don't work, you don't get paid". The idea that people can "free load" on the system is offensive at a really deep emotional level. If I suggest that a third of the people can work, and the other 2 thirds do nothing, but get supported, most will get distressed [1]. The very essence of US society is that we are defined by our work. And yet if 2% of the work force is in agriculture, and produce enough food for all, why is hunger a thing? As jobs become ever more productive, perhaps just -considering- a world where worth is not linked to output is a useful thought exercise. No country has figured this out perfectly yet. Norway is pretty close. Lots of Europe has endless unemployment benefits. Yes, there's still progress to be made there. [1] of course, even in the US, already it's OK for only a 3rd to work. Children don't work. Neither do retirees. Both essentially live off the labor of those in-between. But imagine if we keep raising the start-working age, while reducing retirement benefits age....
    - ako 1y ago
      Sounds great in theory, but doesn't seem very realistic. There will always be people that want power over other people, and having more than others will give them that power. And universally, if you have nothing, you lead a very poor life. You life in a minimal house (trailer park, slums, or housing without running water nor working sewage). You don't have a car, you can't travel, education opportunities are limited. Most kids want to become independent, so they have control over their spending and power over their own lives. Poor retirees are unhappy, sometimes even have to keep working to afford living. Norway is close because they have oil to sell, but if no one can afford to buy oil, and they can't afford to buy cars, nor products made with oil, Norway will soon run out of money. You can wonder, why is Russia attacking Ukraine, russia has enough land, doesn't need more. But in the end there will always be people motivated by more power and money, which makes it impossible to create this communism 2.0 that you're describing.

by maegul 1y ago

bruce511 1y ago

To be fair, LLMs are just the most recent step in a long road of doing the same thing. At any point of progress in history you can look backwards and forwards and the world is different. Before tractors a man with an ox could plough x field in y time. After tractors he can plough much larger areas. The nature of farming changes. (Fewer people needed to farm more land. ) The car arrives, horses leave. Computers arrive, the typing pool goes away. Typing was a skill, now everyone does it and spell checkers hide imperfections. So yeah LLMs make "drawing easier". Which means just that. Is that good or bad? Well I can't draw the old fashioned way so for me, good. Cooking used to be hard. Today cooking is easy, and very accessible. More importantly good food (cooked at home or elsewhere) is accessible to a much higher % of the population. Preparing the evening meal no longer starts with "pluck 2 chickens" and grinding a kilo of dried corn. So yeah, LLMs are here. And yes things will change. Some old jobs will become obsolete. Some new ones will appear. This is normal, it's been happening forever.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
thankyoufriend 1y ago
The difference between GenAI and your examples is a theft component. They stole our data - your data - and used it to build a machine that diverts wealth to the rich. The only equitable way for GenAI to move forward is if we all own a share of it, since it would not exist in its current form without our data. GenAI should be a Universal Basic Asset.
- bruce511 1y ago
  I appreciate the idealism but your argument has some flaws. Firstly the "theft component" isn't exactly new. There have always been rich and poor. Secondly everyone is standing on the shoulders of giants. The Beatles were influenced by the works of others. Paul and John learned to write by mimicking other writers. That code you right is the pinicle of endless work dine by others. By Ada Lovelace, and Charles Babbage, and Alan Turing and Brian Kernigan and Denis Ritchie and Doug Englebart and thousands and thousands more. By your logic the entire output of all industries for all foreseeable generations should be universally owned. [1] But that's not the direction we have built society on. Rather society has evolved in the US to reward those who create value out of the common space. The oil in Texas doesn't belong to all Texans, it doesn't belong to the pump maker, it belongs to the company that pumps the oil. Equally there's no such thing as 'your data'. It's your choice to publish or not. Information cannot be 'owned'. Works can be copyrighted, but frankly you have a bigger argument on that front going after Google (and Google Books, not to mention the Internet Archive) than AI. AI may train on data you produced, but it does not copy it. [1] I'm actually for a basic income model, we don't need everyone working all day like it's 1900 anymore. That means more taxes on companies and the ultra wealthy. Apparently voters disagree as they continue to vote for people who prefer the opposite.
  - sirwhinesalot 1y ago
    I think your last point is very reductionist. Nearly every country ends up in a voting situation where only 2 parties can realistically win. A diverse parlament results in paralysis and the fall of government (happened in my home country multiple times). The two parties that end up viable tend to be financed quite heavily by said wealthy, including being proped by the media said wealthy control. The more right wing side will promise tax cuts (also for the poor that don't seem to materialize) while the more left wing side will promise to tax the rich (but in an easily dodgeable way that only ends up affecting the middle class). Many people understand this and it is barely part of the consideration in their vote. The last election in the US was a social battle, not really an economic one. And I think the wealthy backers wanted it that way.
ako 1y ago
The scare for most people is that AI isn't better tools, but outsourced work. In the past we would create our own products, now other countries do this. In the past we did our own thinking and creative activities, now LLMs will. If we don't have something better to do we'll all be at home doing nothing. We all need jobs to afford living, and already today many have bullshit jobs. Are we going to a world where 99.9% of the people need a bullshit job just to survive?
- bruce511 1y ago
  Personally I think your basic premise is false, hence your conclusion is false. >> We all need jobs to afford living In many countries this is already not true. There is already enough wealth that there is enough for everyone. Yes, the western mindset is kinda "you don't work, you don't get paid". The idea that people can "free load" on the system is offensive at a really deep emotional level. If I suggest that a third of the people can work, and the other 2 thirds do nothing, but get supported, most will get distressed [1]. The very essence of US society is that we are defined by our work. And yet if 2% of the work force is in agriculture, and produce enough food for all, why is hunger a thing? As jobs become ever more productive, perhaps just -considering- a world where worth is not linked to output is a useful thought exercise. No country has figured this out perfectly yet. Norway is pretty close. Lots of Europe has endless unemployment benefits. Yes, there's still progress to be made there. [1] of course, even in the US, already it's OK for only a 3rd to work. Children don't work. Neither do retirees. Both essentially live off the labor of those in-between. But imagine if we keep raising the start-working age, while reducing retirement benefits age....
  - ako 1y ago
    Sounds great in theory, but doesn't seem very realistic. There will always be people that want power over other people, and having more than others will give them that power. And universally, if you have nothing, you lead a very poor life. You life in a minimal house (trailer park, slums, or housing without running water nor working sewage). You don't have a car, you can't travel, education opportunities are limited. Most kids want to become independent, so they have control over their spending and power over their own lives. Poor retirees are unhappy, sometimes even have to keep working to afford living. Norway is close because they have oil to sell, but if no one can afford to buy oil, and they can't afford to buy cars, nor products made with oil, Norway will soon run out of money. You can wonder, why is Russia attacking Ukraine, russia has enough land, doesn't need more. But in the end there will always be people motivated by more power and money, which makes it impossible to create this communism 2.0 that you're describing.