6 ms·

Either way I don't think this will end well for humanity.

by mrits 3mo ago

scottyah 3mo ago
How could it not? I get the whole fear of AI making robots and going anti-human, but after using the tech for a few months now that seems too absurd.
- munk-a 3mo ago
  There are two rationale objections, I think... One is the potential for skill rot where AI grows a heavy dependence in new employees and once the real price per token cost is settled on and discoverable (post massive IPOs and probably a while post - not immediately after) we, as a society, are left with a bunch of people dependent on a deeply inefficient technology to maintain software we now view as vital that might severely impede our ability to actually deal with climate change (press X to doubt Bezos). The second is that the psychological damage of interacting with models in a social context during your formative years is deeply damaging and we've essentially destroyed the ability for a generation or two to actually interact as productive members of society. Addressing the second issue doesn't necessarily exclude our ability to leverage models for business productivity but it seems unlikely to happen in the current climate without that also happening. I am hesitant to believe in a sudden outbreak of common sense at this point. The first point, could really be a systems collapse trigger - we can argue about the likelihood but denying it as a possibility is excessively naive.
  - sevenzero 3mo ago
    I agree with the skill drain argument but also think its a little too dramatic. Most people still can do the shit claude does for them, it just takes them 10x as long.
  - scottyah 3mo ago
    Both seem to just point at the WALL-E outcome, summarized as humans outsourcing too much thinking. I just don't see that as an end- just another divide between people. I'm seeing some degradation for sure, but not really an "end".
  - pc86 3mo ago
    What climate change have to do with anything?
    - fyltr 3mo ago
      there are claims that llms might be taxing on the planet to run BUT that they will solve [some, all] problems including climate change and therefore be beneficial in the long run.
- petre 3mo ago
  It's would probably just burn more gas and make the climate even worse. Some assholes will get richer in the process.
  - scottyah 3mo ago
    But "some assholes" is an extremely large, growing group of people. Do you have any idea how much more productive small business owners are now? It's an insane boost for people who didn't want to spend their time on things that are extremely critical for business but not the focus of the business.
    - hn_acc1 3mo ago
      And people loved "free next day delivery" from Amazon, when it started. It's not quite the same level of service anymore, and membership has gone up in price. Would these businesses pay 2x? 5x? 10x? What is their breaking point? I'm sure xAI/OpenAI/whoever will find it and charge 0.9x that (eventually). Just look at telecoms / internet access and their rubbish "network congestion" claims to keep raising prices.
      - scottyah 3mo ago
        I still get a lot of free next day, and now sometimes even same day, delivery for amazon. I doubt the membership prices has even matched inflation, but it is certainly well worth it. I can't see any governmental or volunteer organization that would produce even slightly comparable results with the same budget.
- thewebguyd 3mo ago
  Because (collective) we don't own the tech. Frontier models are proprietary, their reasoning logic is hidden, and as seen with Fable the government giveth and taketh away on a whim. Capabilities can be gated behind certification programs, or by money, or any other numerous corrupt and non-corrupt means. Model capabilities can be segregated by pricing tiers, creating an economic underclass that cannot afford access to frontier intelligence. For humanity to benefit, the tech needs to be open and equally available to all.
  - scottyah 3mo ago
    Do you hate all lessons from humanity's past or just the most important ones? If it takes work from a specific subset of the population and isn't compensated, then my friend, what you advocate for is slavery...
    - thewebguyd 3mo ago
      Ah yes, I forgot, Linus Torvalds and the thousands of others that built Linux over time are all slaves. Guess someone should probably go rescue them.
      - scottyah 3mo ago
        None of them were compelled, and nobody is stopping you from running your own LLM generously provided by others. Doesn't mean when linux came out people nationalized Apple and Microsoft.
        thewebguyd 3mo ago
        The risk I'm talking about isn't nationalization of companies, its corporate monopolization of frontier intelligence capabilities through capital consolidation and regulatory capture. "Just run your own LLM" ignores the asymmetry of frontier intelligence. You can build an operating system in your garage with just time and cheap hardware. You cannot go build GPT-5. And that's the problem with keeping it proprietary. If the primary cognitive engines of human progress are consolidated within just a handful of closed, proprietary cartels that can gate, alter, and revoke capabilities at will it creates a permanent economic underclass. The foundational infrastructure of our collective future shouldn't be entirely walled off. Fair compensation for a commercial product doesn't mean monopolization of foundational capabilities.
- hn_acc1 3mo ago
  How can it end well, when it's mostly owned / controlled by narcistic billionaires who would love to eradicate anyone who so much as looks at them sideways? And who view "mass population reduction" and "I'll get to be a king in my castle, served by peons who depend on my favor to live" as the most desirable outcome of AGI?!? If even one of these had pledge that all profit goes to end world hunger, cancer research, etc, I could possibly see it - but they haven't. They're all after finding a way to be the biggest, richest asshole possible with the ability to crush anyone in their way..
  - scottyah 3mo ago
    Have you isolated yourself completely from reality? I don't even know where to begin on this. Let's start with the fact that China is pumping out some near-frontier models and open sourcing the weights- and they don't even follow capitalism and the owners aren't billionaires. Really there are like four models in the USA that are "owners/controllers", and only one is even slightly controllable by its CEO, though none of the frontier models can last a week without the support of entire teams. Why on earth would you want to siphon off the proceeds of AI development to (ok my bias is strong here- mostly corrupt) "ideals" like world hunger and cancer research (that probably get more dollars annually than the sum of actual profit any of these companies will ever get). That would just instantly kill the ability to improve AI at all, and the world could possibly be better for a few months?

Either way I don't think this will end well for humanity.

by mrits 3mo ago

Either way I don't think this will end well for humanity.

How could it not? I get the whole fear of AI making robots and going anti-human, but after using the tech for a few months now that seems too absurd.

munk-a 3mo ago
There are two rationale objections, I think... One is the potential for skill rot where AI grows a heavy dependence in new employees and once the real price per token cost is settled on and discoverable (post massive IPOs and probably a while post - not immediately after) we, as a society, are left with a bunch of people dependent on a deeply inefficient technology to maintain software we now view as vital that might severely impede our ability to actually deal with climate change (press X to doubt Bezos). The second is that the psychological damage of interacting with models in a social context during your formative years is deeply damaging and we've essentially destroyed the ability for a generation or two to actually interact as productive members of society. Addressing the second issue doesn't necessarily exclude our ability to leverage models for business productivity but it seems unlikely to happen in the current climate without that also happening. I am hesitant to believe in a sudden outbreak of common sense at this point. The first point, could really be a systems collapse trigger - we can argue about the likelihood but denying it as a possibility is excessively naive.
- sevenzero 3mo ago
  I agree with the skill drain argument but also think its a little too dramatic. Most people still can do the shit claude does for them, it just takes them 10x as long.
- scottyah 3mo ago
  Both seem to just point at the WALL-E outcome, summarized as humans outsourcing too much thinking. I just don't see that as an end- just another divide between people. I'm seeing some degradation for sure, but not really an "end".
- pc86 3mo ago
  What climate change have to do with anything?
  - fyltr 3mo ago
    there are claims that llms might be taxing on the planet to run BUT that they will solve [some, all] problems including climate change and therefore be beneficial in the long run.
petre 3mo ago
It's would probably just burn more gas and make the climate even worse. Some assholes will get richer in the process.
- scottyah 3mo ago
  But "some assholes" is an extremely large, growing group of people. Do you have any idea how much more productive small business owners are now? It's an insane boost for people who didn't want to spend their time on things that are extremely critical for business but not the focus of the business.
  - hn_acc1 3mo ago
    And people loved "free next day delivery" from Amazon, when it started. It's not quite the same level of service anymore, and membership has gone up in price. Would these businesses pay 2x? 5x? 10x? What is their breaking point? I'm sure xAI/OpenAI/whoever will find it and charge 0.9x that (eventually). Just look at telecoms / internet access and their rubbish "network congestion" claims to keep raising prices.
    - scottyah 3mo ago
      I still get a lot of free next day, and now sometimes even same day, delivery for amazon. I doubt the membership prices has even matched inflation, but it is certainly well worth it. I can't see any governmental or volunteer organization that would produce even slightly comparable results with the same budget.
thewebguyd 3mo ago
Because (collective) we don't own the tech. Frontier models are proprietary, their reasoning logic is hidden, and as seen with Fable the government giveth and taketh away on a whim. Capabilities can be gated behind certification programs, or by money, or any other numerous corrupt and non-corrupt means. Model capabilities can be segregated by pricing tiers, creating an economic underclass that cannot afford access to frontier intelligence. For humanity to benefit, the tech needs to be open and equally available to all.
- scottyah 3mo ago
  Do you hate all lessons from humanity's past or just the most important ones? If it takes work from a specific subset of the population and isn't compensated, then my friend, what you advocate for is slavery...
  - thewebguyd 3mo ago
    Ah yes, I forgot, Linus Torvalds and the thousands of others that built Linux over time are all slaves. Guess someone should probably go rescue them.
    - scottyah 3mo ago
      None of them were compelled, and nobody is stopping you from running your own LLM generously provided by others. Doesn't mean when linux came out people nationalized Apple and Microsoft.
      - thewebguyd 3mo ago
        The risk I'm talking about isn't nationalization of companies, its corporate monopolization of frontier intelligence capabilities through capital consolidation and regulatory capture. "Just run your own LLM" ignores the asymmetry of frontier intelligence. You can build an operating system in your garage with just time and cheap hardware. You cannot go build GPT-5. And that's the problem with keeping it proprietary. If the primary cognitive engines of human progress are consolidated within just a handful of closed, proprietary cartels that can gate, alter, and revoke capabilities at will it creates a permanent economic underclass. The foundational infrastructure of our collective future shouldn't be entirely walled off. Fair compensation for a commercial product doesn't mean monopolization of foundational capabilities.
hn_acc1 3mo ago
How can it end well, when it's mostly owned / controlled by narcistic billionaires who would love to eradicate anyone who so much as looks at them sideways? And who view "mass population reduction" and "I'll get to be a king in my castle, served by peons who depend on my favor to live" as the most desirable outcome of AGI?!? If even one of these had pledge that all profit goes to end world hunger, cancer research, etc, I could possibly see it - but they haven't. They're all after finding a way to be the biggest, richest asshole possible with the ability to crush anyone in their way..
- scottyah 3mo ago
  Have you isolated yourself completely from reality? I don't even know where to begin on this. Let's start with the fact that China is pumping out some near-frontier models and open sourcing the weights- and they don't even follow capitalism and the owners aren't billionaires. Really there are like four models in the USA that are "owners/controllers", and only one is even slightly controllable by its CEO, though none of the frontier models can last a week without the support of entire teams. Why on earth would you want to siphon off the proceeds of AI development to (ok my bias is strong here- mostly corrupt) "ideals" like world hunger and cancer research (that probably get more dollars annually than the sum of actual profit any of these companies will ever get). That would just instantly kill the ability to improve AI at all, and the world could possibly be better for a few months?