In my opinion, as AI was oversold for too long, it was was easy to dismiss it. Classical image processing was marketed as “AI”. Doomsday predictions about AI seemed laughable, just as SkyNet in the Terminator seemed unrealistic.
The early ChatGPT versions were also pretty silly and equally oversold.
At this point, the popular messaging of AI is still 90% fiction but the remaining real 10% is now a force to be reckoned with.
Companies laying off Indian call center employees to replace with AI is something I never would have dreamed of.
My experience of using AI as a search engine has surprised me. I never expected an overgrown pile of matrices to work that well.
Indeed! And the returns from such an investment in infrastructure will likely be profound.
I feel AI is a bit different, as in there is a spectrum ranging from “utterly stupid” (early ChatGPT), “very helpful” (kinda now), “SkyNet 2.0” (what good are humans!).
As algorithms and technology improve, AI will be both cheaper and more capable. Companies like Anthrophic wouldn’t be the vaulted celebrities as they are today. At that point, I’m not sure what value much of society can provide…
At one time, blacksmiths had a valued place in general society. Today, not so much…
NGL, I would gladly trade opus 4.8 in exchange for my city fixing the roads. Just imagine if even a quarter of the money being dumped into AI went to something that actually improved peoples lives. Man that would be a sight to behold.
Well, if everyone is out of a job, the government is going to have to do something so I’m not too worried about it. If I had to be an optimist about it, I would say that this might be the perfect catalyst to build out a lot of renewable energy (for data centers) and maybe actually implement UBI.
If one works for a gun manufacturer, should they feel personally guilty when crimes are committed? What about when police arrest a criminal without injury? Perhaps the balance is determined whether the viewpoint is from one of killing or one of deterrence.
If a doctor provides medical care that extends a to-be murder’s lifespan, is that a good thing? Sure, hopefully most patients aren’t and the provided care is a “net positive”, but does that make it okay?
Sure, one can say, I’ll do paper sales at Dunder Miflin and not have to worry about these problems. Few have been murdered by paper cut. However if they aren’t the #1 paper supplier for almost every “evil” entity one can imagine, it’s ONLY because they failed to do so. It’s easy to pretend to be virtuous after failing otherwise.
That said, I’m not sure if I have ever met any true believers. The executives that claim to be clearly aren’t. The intellectually curious are motivated by the problem, not the product.
> If one works for a gun manufacturer, should they feel personally guilty when crimes are committed?
I don't think this analogy holds. You could use a gun to commit a crime, but you could also use a gun to defend yourself. On the other hand, if your CEO is talking about getting rid of all labor, well, you're kind of complicit in the crime if you keep working there. There's no ambiguity as to "what will this be used for", like there is with a gun.
> If one works for a gun manufacturer, should they feel personally guilty when crimes are committed?
I would be very conflicted, because the inherent purpose of a gun is its ability to harm people, regardless of whether any given concrete case constitutes a crime or not.
reply