It’s not going to. Saying all AI should stop is like saying “all gunpowder should stop”. Would everyone be better off if no one was using it? Maybe. But that’s not going to happen at this point, and will give you a strategic disadvantage if you unilaterally disarm.
And to be clear I’m not talking about using AI to write a screenplay or something creative, I mean like using it to write software, to optimize industrial processes etc.
You’re right that global warming is an existential threat. And right now the power grid is contributing to it.
At the same time, we’re seeing constant innovations in solar power and battery technology, while the cost of both are going down. Solar is now the cheapest source of energy per unit. There is enough energy from the sun to cover multiples of all current energy use by humans.
AI models started out as extremely energy intensive, but are becoming increasingly more efficient. You can now run models on your phone with abilities which previously required a server running dedicated graphics cards.
You’re also right that we shouldn’t outsource critical thinking. Still to say AI has “all the worst use cases” is wrong. Yes, it has plenty of bad use cases, by many great ones. I use it in my day to day work to save time.
Something like a law banning the use of AI will never pass, and if it did, other countries wouldn’t also pass it. A country which uses AI will outperform one that does not (economically, although probably militarily as well). In that scenario, leaving AI capability in the hands of private enterprise makes us subject to the whims of rich elites. For an analog see the case of Elon Musk turning Starlink on/off in Ukraine. Which again is why I do think there’s value in open source AI, and more specifically AI only available to democratically controlled entities - nation states but also things like worker cooperatives to compete with corporations.
What are we doing in life that we need ridiculous autocomplete to save time at work?
If we wanna talk about absolutes, we don’t need commute at all, and cars, and we can just build trains and live happy lives without consuming so much shit.
AI is not needed anywhere at all. Unlike food (vegan), water, heat, and shelter.
You’re right, we don’t “need” most modern conveniences. But they save us time and provide an improved quality of life. Why do we need power tools? Why motors? Why electricity, running water, artificial light? I joke, but AI is one of a long chain of tools designed to save us time, or extend our capabilities and reach. Why are you particularly opposed to this one over others? I return to my argument: AI is concerning because of its potential for change. I don’t think we can prevent it from existing, but we can make it accessible to normal people and not solely the domain of the rich.
I bet me and the person I’m responding to have a ton in common. Likewise me and the person who wrote that post. But I don’t relate to the position of “all AI should stop.”
I think there should be democratically accountable AI development. I’m interested in open source but the problem with it is that private corporations take advantage of it until they get big enough to try to lock out competitors. (See Google with Android) I would love to see an “open source” license which allows use by individuals and democratic entities, but forbids use by private enterprise.
Unless you want to vouch for the rant site’s claim that AI is necessary for civilization and existence, you have almost nothing in common with his fearmongering. And if you do believe that, that is disappointing.
I don’t see it as fear mongering. What do you think of open source software like Linux, Firefox, VLC and so on? Because a similar argument is made there - we need to use these tools day to day, and the only option being to pay a corporation to use them would make us literally poorer, and we also wouldn’t have the features and quality we see in Windows, Mac, Chrome etc if there weren’t open source competitors.
Is lack of open source AI currently a civilizational existential threat? No. Could it be if current trends continue? Potentially. Things could get pretty dystopian if only the mega rich control tools with ultra-intelligence.
There are some open models right now, but they’re mostly ones created by private enterprise that were released to the public. Creating models is more resource intensive than making open source software. So it makes sense to pool resources for the public good.
Is lack of open source AI currently a civilizational existential threat? No. Could it be if current trends continue? Potentially. Things could get pretty dystopian if only the mega rich control tools with ultra-intelligence.
“Could”, “potentially,” what-ifs. CEOs and actual cult leaders like Eli Yudkowsky have spoonfed the narrative to gullible journalists and politicians.
game theory, my friend. You can’t stop if there’s a chance someone else is building it. The only way to prevent this would be some sort of AI proliferation treaty like we have for nukes but nukes you test by making large explosions which are easy to detect. How are you going to detect some state backed group in a bunker somewhere disconnected from the internet developing a super AI? I’m fully against ai but the cat is already out of the bag.
All AI should stop
So, say it won’t. What’s your plan B? You’ll probably need it.
It’s not going to. Saying all AI should stop is like saying “all gunpowder should stop”. Would everyone be better off if no one was using it? Maybe. But that’s not going to happen at this point, and will give you a strategic disadvantage if you unilaterally disarm.
And to be clear I’m not talking about using AI to write a screenplay or something creative, I mean like using it to write software, to optimize industrial processes etc.
Gunpowder has some very good uses.
AI has all the worst use-cases while frying the planet.
AI will kill us not because it becomes sentient, but because we have turned our brains off and disregarded the coming extinction event.
We don’t need software for everything. We need to scale down our evergy usage, and we can do that ourselves.
You’re right that global warming is an existential threat. And right now the power grid is contributing to it.
At the same time, we’re seeing constant innovations in solar power and battery technology, while the cost of both are going down. Solar is now the cheapest source of energy per unit. There is enough energy from the sun to cover multiples of all current energy use by humans.
AI models started out as extremely energy intensive, but are becoming increasingly more efficient. You can now run models on your phone with abilities which previously required a server running dedicated graphics cards.
You’re also right that we shouldn’t outsource critical thinking. Still to say AI has “all the worst use cases” is wrong. Yes, it has plenty of bad use cases, by many great ones. I use it in my day to day work to save time.
Something like a law banning the use of AI will never pass, and if it did, other countries wouldn’t also pass it. A country which uses AI will outperform one that does not (economically, although probably militarily as well). In that scenario, leaving AI capability in the hands of private enterprise makes us subject to the whims of rich elites. For an analog see the case of Elon Musk turning Starlink on/off in Ukraine. Which again is why I do think there’s value in open source AI, and more specifically AI only available to democratically controlled entities - nation states but also things like worker cooperatives to compete with corporations.
What are we doing in life that we need ridiculous autocomplete to save time at work?
If we wanna talk about absolutes, we don’t need commute at all, and cars, and we can just build trains and live happy lives without consuming so much shit.
AI is not needed anywhere at all. Unlike food (vegan), water, heat, and shelter.
Which many people don’t have.
You’re right, we don’t “need” most modern conveniences. But they save us time and provide an improved quality of life. Why do we need power tools? Why motors? Why electricity, running water, artificial light? I joke, but AI is one of a long chain of tools designed to save us time, or extend our capabilities and reach. Why are you particularly opposed to this one over others? I return to my argument: AI is concerning because of its potential for change. I don’t think we can prevent it from existing, but we can make it accessible to normal people and not solely the domain of the rich.
I’m talking mostly about ads and random plastic shit polluting the earth. Which ties to planned obsolence.
AI makes sense in many places, but fuck LLMs, we can do better.
“All AI should stop” is a far more reasonable opinion than the one presented by the
websiteblog9-sentence rant linked above.You have far more in common with the person you’re pushing back on than the author of the rant.
I bet me and the person I’m responding to have a ton in common. Likewise me and the person who wrote that post. But I don’t relate to the position of “all AI should stop.”
I think there should be democratically accountable AI development. I’m interested in open source but the problem with it is that private corporations take advantage of it until they get big enough to try to lock out competitors. (See Google with Android) I would love to see an “open source” license which allows use by individuals and democratic entities, but forbids use by private enterprise.
Unless you want to vouch for the rant site’s claim that AI is necessary for civilization and existence, you have almost nothing in common with his fearmongering. And if you do believe that, that is disappointing.
I don’t see it as fear mongering. What do you think of open source software like Linux, Firefox, VLC and so on? Because a similar argument is made there - we need to use these tools day to day, and the only option being to pay a corporation to use them would make us literally poorer, and we also wouldn’t have the features and quality we see in Windows, Mac, Chrome etc if there weren’t open source competitors.
Is lack of open source AI currently a civilizational existential threat? No. Could it be if current trends continue? Potentially. Things could get pretty dystopian if only the mega rich control tools with ultra-intelligence.
There are some open models right now, but they’re mostly ones created by private enterprise that were released to the public. Creating models is more resource intensive than making open source software. So it makes sense to pool resources for the public good.
Ah, the fear of the potential thing as described by the ultra-rich.
Why do you trust them to be the ones who shape your fears?
I don’t think you’re engaging with what I’m saying sincerely, and I’m trying to do that with you.
I was responding directly to this.
“Could”, “potentially,” what-ifs. CEOs and actual cult leaders like Eli Yudkowsky have spoonfed the narrative to gullible journalists and politicians.
Why do you trust them?
game theory, my friend. You can’t stop if there’s a chance someone else is building it. The only way to prevent this would be some sort of AI proliferation treaty like we have for nukes but nukes you test by making large explosions which are easy to detect. How are you going to detect some state backed group in a bunker somewhere disconnected from the internet developing a super AI? I’m fully against ai but the cat is already out of the bag.
Monitor fossil fuels burning.
This won’t work on china in the near future.
Solar solar solar
Thats-the-point.jpg
go solar, then nobody gets hurt