I feel that the argument here hinges on “performant”
The regulatory, cultural, social, even educational factors surrounding these ideas are what could have made these not inevitable. But changes weren’t made, as there was no power strong enough to enact something meaningful.
But DID the Luddites overreact?
They sought to have machines serve people instead of the other way around.
If they had succeeded in regulation over machines and seeing wealth back into the average factory worker’s hands, of artisans integrated into the workforce instead of shut out, would so much of the bloodshed and mayhem to form unions and regulations have been needed?
Broadly, it seems to me that most technological change could use some consideration of people
Yet social media started as individualized “web pages” and journals on myspace. It was a natural outgrowth of the internet at the time, a way for your average person to put a little content on the interwebules.
What became toxic was, arguably, the way in which it was monetized and never really regulated.
I don't disagree with your point and the thing you're saying doesn't contradict the point I was making. The reason why it became toxic is not relevant. The fact that wasn't predicted 20 years ago is what matters in this context.
> The point is that people FEEL they benefit. THAT’S the market for many things.
I don't disagree, but this also doesn't mean that those things are intrinsically good and then we should all pursuit them because that's what the market wants. And that was what I was pushing against, this idea that since 800M people are using GPT then we should all be ok doing AI work because that's what the market is demanding.
Its not that it is intrinsically good but that a lot of people consuming things from their own agency has to mean something. You coming in the middle and suggesting you know better than them is strange.
When billions of people watch football, my first instinct is not to decry football as a problem in society. I acknowledge with humility that though I don't enjoy it, there is something to the activity that makes people watch it.
> a lot of people consuming things from their own agency has to mean something.
Agree. And that something could be a positive or a negative thing. And I'm not suggesting I know better than them. I'm suggesting that humans are not perfect machines and our brains are very easy to manipulate.
Because there are plenty of examples of things enjoyed by a lot of people who are, as a whole, bad. And they might not be bad for the individuals who are doing them, they might enjoy them, and find pleasure in them. But that doesn't make them desirable and also doesn't mean we should see them as market opportunities.
Drugs and alcohol are the easy example:
> A new report from the World Health Organization (WHO) highlights that 2.6 million deaths per year were attributable to alcohol consumption, accounting for 4.7% of all deaths, and 0.6 million deaths to psychoactive drug use. [...] The report shows an estimated 400 million people lived with alcohol use disorders globally. Of this, 209 million people lived with alcohol dependence. (https://www.who.int/news/item/25-06-2024-over-3-million-annu...)
Can we agree that 3 million people dying as a result of something is not a good outcome? If the reports were saying that 3 million people a year are dying as a result of LLM chats we'd all be freaking out.
–––
> my first instinct is not to decry football as a problem in society.
My first instinct is not to decry nothing as a problem, not as a positive. My first instinct is to give ourselves time to figure out which one of the two it is before jumping in head first. Which is definitely not what's happening with LLMs.
This seems rather black and white.
Defining the morals probably makes sense, then evaluating whether they can be lived or whether we can compromise in the face other priorities?
sorry to reply again, but it also sounds as if the lack of context is causing a problem. The word weird terms on a certain emotion and tone of voice. If this were in person, the other party might have a tone and demeanor that shows that word "weird" indicates a trailing off, a need for pause and contemplation, not a potential pejorative.
questioning someone in an academic matter further, just revert to the academic literature around psychology and therapy, where someone reflects in a literal way upon what they said. The LLM could easily have responded that it was just a trailing stray comment meant to indicate inquisitiveness rather than deflection.
if this were real intelligence, it might take a moment to automatically reflect on why it used the word “weird“ and then let the user know that this might be a point of interest to look into?
it sounds like they are trained to be a confidence man executive.
hype things and blow smoke. It's able to form a response when questioned carefully about the patterns created; that’s the only plus I am seeing from your point of view on this particular use of the technology.
Yeah, but their past history should be taken into account here. Altman and musk are just confidence men. what they’ve touched in the past has turned to crap, and it’s only been the people around them that have made anything work despite those people mucking it up.
trust past history as an indicator of future action. In this case, sure some neat stuff will come out of it. But it won’t be nearly what these people say it is. They are huffing each other’s farts.
The regulatory, cultural, social, even educational factors surrounding these ideas are what could have made these not inevitable. But changes weren’t made, as there was no power strong enough to enact something meaningful.
reply