6 ms·

> One look at who is in the driver's seat should give you the answer to this question. I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the question Gates is ask

by bryan0 21d ago

> One look at who is in the driver's seat should give you the answer to this question. I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the question Gates is asking here. He’s not asking “how this going to play out?”, he’s asking “how can we impact how this will play out?” He makes specific proposals like AI token and robot taxes. I just wish people being cynical would at least comment on possible solutions. I think AI taxes potentially make sense. His idea of Human Reserved is fascinating. It might not be his idea but I’ve never heard it described like that before

beloch 21d ago
Is it cynical, or simply realistic, to recognize that AI CEO's won't ask for this kind of policy, and governments won't force anything upon the AI sector until things get very bad? That, in my view, is a much bigger problem. We know what's coming but we won't do anything about it until after a lot of suffering occurs. Why can't we be more proactive?
- marcus_holmes 21d ago
  This is Gates' point, isn't it? We need to be more proactive, and he has suggestions for what to do now, before the bad times.
  - selfhoster1312 21d ago
    The solutions Gates proposes aren't even close to being adequate, they are detrimental to actual solutions. Gates claims AI regulation will make sure AI solves the climate crisis for all. AI is in fact a major contributor to the climate crisis, and AI industries are now the biggest fossil fuel lobbyists across the world. (not suggesting that CO2 is the biggest environmental problem we face) So the man who profited off the Microsoft monster now is proposing anti-solutions to a real problem he helped develop, and we're supposed to actually give him credit? Listen to the real specialists with credible analysis: people like James Mickens on the AI side, and people like Aurore Stéphant on the tech sustainability side.
- bryan0 21d ago
  Yes, I think we all agree AI companies should not be responsible or expected to come up with the best AI policies for society. Gates addresses this directly: > It is great that some AI companies are proposing solutions to challenges raised by their own technology, but we should not expect them to lead the charge. Some of the issues are outside their area of expertise, and in a democratic society it’s not their role to decide these things. Instead, solutions should be developed through a public democratic process that includes elected officials, policymakers, educators, health workers, local officials, and community leaders.
- Erem 21d ago
  > and governments won't force anything upon the AI sector until things get very bad? I think Mamdani and AOC would do it yesterday if they were in charge, and they're incredibly popular politicians to their constituents. More like them are waiting in the wings. So I think it's cynical rather than realistic.
  - idiotsecant 21d ago
    'if they were in charge' is the mechanism by which this will not be fixed. AOC has been so thoroughly vilified in the eyes of the majority of the country that she has no chance of, for example, a presidential run. The same is true of pretty much every progressive candidate. There is an enormously well funded (by both political parties) machine designed to grind progressives into dust and it is extremely effective.
    - JohnnyMarcone 20d ago
      The same was said about our current president, there was no chance he could win, and look where we are. I can just about guarantee there will be several progressives running in '28, potentially AOC as one of them. Even if a progressive doesn't win the nomination, whoever does could be pushed toward the progressive direction. Also don't forget two years is a long time and things can change fast.
      - idiotsecant 20d ago
        You're not wrong, I would have said the same about trump. I think Trump benefitted somewhat from being a political 'dark horse' without any preexisting baggage but who knows!
- oblio 21d ago
  Because people don't work like that. The Titanic was put to sea with life rafts for half its passengers and most people were ok with that kind of logic. It took a massive media campaign around the disaster and the many deaths for change to happen. Slavery is still legal in some places despite toddlers instinctively knowing that freedom is important since the dawn of humans around the world.
ipdashc 21d ago
> I just wish people being cynical would at least comment on possible solutions. This has been bugging me damn near every time people talk about this stuff. Any attempt to propose or even discuss a solution is met with an endless wave of cynicism, sarcasm, and epic burn clapbacks... and usually nothing further. And I'll be the first to admit that finding a "solution" is hard! It's almost like it's an unprecedented technological change! But could we at least be honest and admit it's hard, or are we just going to keep making fun of anyone who tries to talk about it and then do nothing? Sigh. What can you do, I guess.
- meowface 21d ago
  Many people want to critique power rather than propose and judge concrete solutions.
  - vrganj 21d ago
    Maybe the critique is the solution? Maybe the system is so toxic the only way forward is a radical break and solutionism is just a way to distract from that fact? A way to maintain the power structure while making cosmetic changes?
    - ipdashc 21d ago
      Yes, we've all heard this a million times. I'm afraid you've still given zero actual solution or even anything approaching one. "A radical break" okay, a radical break from what? How? To do what differently?
      - vrganj 21d ago
        Let's first finish the critique, then we can use its conclusions to talk about what it would actually take to get us out of this mess. Capitalism has always been a tension between capitalists, who want maximum return on capital and workers, who want pesky things like a living wage, sick leave or safe work conditions. For the longest time, the only power labor has had to get those things was the power of collective bargaining. No agreement with your workers meant no production happened. AI threatens to disturb this delicate balance that made things kinda-sorta work for a while. No more dependence on labor means the capital accumulation flywheel will go crazy. Capital can buy compute can generate capital. Now, once you have a ton of capital, you might start thinking: Hmmm, I wonder if I can use this to tilt the rules of the game in my favor. Wonder which politicians could change some regulations in exchange for a hefty "donation". And so the regulatory capture begins. In other words, the end state of things as they are is: existing capitalists get converted to near-feudal lords (which is why they're so excited about the prospect!), while the existing working class loses their only leverage to extract an existence. All solutionist approaches just slightly slow this incentive loop down or make it more marketable, but none change the core mechanism at play. Now, with this critique in mind, what do we actually do about it? We won't be able to stop AI from taking over more and more labor jobs, and we shouldn't even try to. But that's not really the problem anyways, the problem is that with the current ownership structure, the only ones really benefiting from AI productivity are they already-owning class. That is where we have a lever. The only way out of this dystopian path, and into something more appealing, is communal ownership of the means of production. This doesn't have to mean everyone's laptop, this needs to be measured and scaled of course, but as an example, large-scale data centers should not be allowed to be privately controlled. Now, which mechanism we choose here is up for debate. Maybe government ownership? Maybe worker-owned coops? Maybe something else entirely? Lastly, how do we get there? Historically, there's been two schools of thought: The electoral and the revolutionary approach. I think both have their merits, but I actually think they best work together. Think of the Bismarckian example: Why was the conservative German chancellor the one to introduce the German social safety net? To stave off a credible threat of revolution. I think that while I don't really love the idea of a revolution, the ruling class loves it even less, because historically they are the ones that end up beheaded. That's why I see revolutionary movements as a good way to extract concessions, because they don't need to actually go through with it as long as they're threatening enough.

by bryan0 21d ago

beloch 21d ago

Is it cynical, or simply realistic, to recognize that AI CEO's won't ask for this kind of policy, and governments won't force anything upon the AI sector until things get very bad? That, in my view, is a much bigger problem. We know what's coming but we won't do anything about it until after a lot of suffering occurs. Why can't we be more proactive?

marcus_holmes 21d ago
This is Gates' point, isn't it? We need to be more proactive, and he has suggestions for what to do now, before the bad times.
- selfhoster1312 21d ago
  The solutions Gates proposes aren't even close to being adequate, they are detrimental to actual solutions. Gates claims AI regulation will make sure AI solves the climate crisis for all. AI is in fact a major contributor to the climate crisis, and AI industries are now the biggest fossil fuel lobbyists across the world. (not suggesting that CO2 is the biggest environmental problem we face) So the man who profited off the Microsoft monster now is proposing anti-solutions to a real problem he helped develop, and we're supposed to actually give him credit? Listen to the real specialists with credible analysis: people like James Mickens on the AI side, and people like Aurore Stéphant on the tech sustainability side.
bryan0 21d ago
Yes, I think we all agree AI companies should not be responsible or expected to come up with the best AI policies for society. Gates addresses this directly: > It is great that some AI companies are proposing solutions to challenges raised by their own technology, but we should not expect them to lead the charge. Some of the issues are outside their area of expertise, and in a democratic society it’s not their role to decide these things. Instead, solutions should be developed through a public democratic process that includes elected officials, policymakers, educators, health workers, local officials, and community leaders.
Erem 21d ago
> and governments won't force anything upon the AI sector until things get very bad? I think Mamdani and AOC would do it yesterday if they were in charge, and they're incredibly popular politicians to their constituents. More like them are waiting in the wings. So I think it's cynical rather than realistic.
- idiotsecant 21d ago
  'if they were in charge' is the mechanism by which this will not be fixed. AOC has been so thoroughly vilified in the eyes of the majority of the country that she has no chance of, for example, a presidential run. The same is true of pretty much every progressive candidate. There is an enormously well funded (by both political parties) machine designed to grind progressives into dust and it is extremely effective.
  - JohnnyMarcone 20d ago
    The same was said about our current president, there was no chance he could win, and look where we are. I can just about guarantee there will be several progressives running in '28, potentially AOC as one of them. Even if a progressive doesn't win the nomination, whoever does could be pushed toward the progressive direction. Also don't forget two years is a long time and things can change fast.
    - idiotsecant 20d ago
      You're not wrong, I would have said the same about trump. I think Trump benefitted somewhat from being a political 'dark horse' without any preexisting baggage but who knows!
oblio 21d ago
Because people don't work like that. The Titanic was put to sea with life rafts for half its passengers and most people were ok with that kind of logic. It took a massive media campaign around the disaster and the many deaths for change to happen. Slavery is still legal in some places despite toddlers instinctively knowing that freedom is important since the dawn of humans around the world.

ipdashc 21d ago

> I just wish people being cynical would at least comment on possible solutions. This has been bugging me damn near every time people talk about this stuff. Any attempt to propose or even discuss a solution is met with an endless wave of cynicism, sarcasm, and epic burn clapbacks... and usually nothing further. And I'll be the first to admit that finding a "solution" is hard! It's almost like it's an unprecedented technological change! But could we at least be honest and admit it's hard, or are we just going to keep making fun of anyone who tries to talk about it and then do nothing? Sigh. What can you do, I guess.

meowface 21d ago
Many people want to critique power rather than propose and judge concrete solutions.
- vrganj 21d ago
  Maybe the critique is the solution? Maybe the system is so toxic the only way forward is a radical break and solutionism is just a way to distract from that fact? A way to maintain the power structure while making cosmetic changes?
  - ipdashc 21d ago
    Yes, we've all heard this a million times. I'm afraid you've still given zero actual solution or even anything approaching one. "A radical break" okay, a radical break from what? How? To do what differently?
    - vrganj 21d ago
      Let's first finish the critique, then we can use its conclusions to talk about what it would actually take to get us out of this mess. Capitalism has always been a tension between capitalists, who want maximum return on capital and workers, who want pesky things like a living wage, sick leave or safe work conditions. For the longest time, the only power labor has had to get those things was the power of collective bargaining. No agreement with your workers meant no production happened. AI threatens to disturb this delicate balance that made things kinda-sorta work for a while. No more dependence on labor means the capital accumulation flywheel will go crazy. Capital can buy compute can generate capital. Now, once you have a ton of capital, you might start thinking: Hmmm, I wonder if I can use this to tilt the rules of the game in my favor. Wonder which politicians could change some regulations in exchange for a hefty "donation". And so the regulatory capture begins. In other words, the end state of things as they are is: existing capitalists get converted to near-feudal lords (which is why they're so excited about the prospect!), while the existing working class loses their only leverage to extract an existence. All solutionist approaches just slightly slow this incentive loop down or make it more marketable, but none change the core mechanism at play. Now, with this critique in mind, what do we actually do about it? We won't be able to stop AI from taking over more and more labor jobs, and we shouldn't even try to. But that's not really the problem anyways, the problem is that with the current ownership structure, the only ones really benefiting from AI productivity are they already-owning class. That is where we have a lever. The only way out of this dystopian path, and into something more appealing, is communal ownership of the means of production. This doesn't have to mean everyone's laptop, this needs to be measured and scaled of course, but as an example, large-scale data centers should not be allowed to be privately controlled. Now, which mechanism we choose here is up for debate. Maybe government ownership? Maybe worker-owned coops? Maybe something else entirely? Lastly, how do we get there? Historically, there's been two schools of thought: The electoral and the revolutionary approach. I think both have their merits, but I actually think they best work together. Think of the Bismarckian example: Why was the conservative German chancellor the one to introduce the German social safety net? To stave off a credible threat of revolution. I think that while I don't really love the idea of a revolution, the ruling class loves it even less, because historically they are the ones that end up beheaded. That's why I see revolutionary movements as a good way to extract concessions, because they don't need to actually go through with it as long as they're threatening enough.