[untitled]
5 comments
I've keep thinking about it that people who advocate for AI tend to lean - or at least feel like leaning - right. Though that may be because opposition to AI tend to be from progressive/labor-adjacent left-leaning ones, a dichotomy?
Not sure what it has to do with the content of what I’ve written above. But my own take on this is that AI opposition is left leaning because modern progressives are anything but that. They want to conserve the current situation and AI threatens a disruption.
> So the idea that if we simply keep, you know, piling more and more data, and we will transform this quantity into a quality to move to the next level. It doesn’t work.
Have we not realised that it is exactly the opposite of this?
Have we not realised that it is exactly the opposite of this?
The contention that AI is just a tool, and that all tools are neutral, is disingenuous. AI is is not neutral the way a hammer is, able to be owned and wielded by anyone for any purpose they choose.
AI is owned by an elite few, and only used for their purposes. It is the farthest thing from neutral. It's purpose is solely for the benefit of of the owning class; it is paid for by them, used by them, and sold to others like them for the same purposes, like reducing payroll.
AI is owned by an elite few, and only used for their purposes. It is the farthest thing from neutral. It's purpose is solely for the benefit of of the owning class; it is paid for by them, used by them, and sold to others like them for the same purposes, like reducing payroll.
> I mean, that’s exactly what’s happening in the United States right now—techno-fascism. You know, the intent appears to be to replace most people—most federal workers—with AI, which is gonna have all the problems that we talked about. The intent is to surveil them, to surveil people. To get, you know, massive amounts of data, put it all together in one place, accessible to a small oligarchy. I mean, that’s just what they’re doing.
Who is doing the surveilling? If anything we see a conflict between the companies and the government - the government wants to be able to read the chats. But I still don't get how surveillance is somehow specific to AI?
>accessible to a small oligarchy
But this is literally what's not happening. We already have opensource models that perform as good as the best ones a year back. And they run in our laptops.
> This is a place where I may be an AI optimist, although not short term. So I genuinely believe that, in principle, we can build AI that could do fact-checking automatically faster than people, and I think we need that.
To anyone who used AI to do quick fact checking - it is quite obvious that it is way better than an average human. This is pretty much what I use it for and it is very very reliable (if able to use tools). At least more reliable than the average smart person but not so much as an expert.
It is so reliable that it is hard to be propagandised on anything - AI tends to converge on the general consensus and shows nuance in politically charged debates. AI is the kryptonite for extremists (on any side) because it is trivial to counter check the claims made by them.
My optimistic take is that extremism would die out because it is just too hard to convince people who have access to AI. I feel this was the same case before the internet - extremists could claim whatever they wanted but we have the internet now and it is simple to fact check them.