You are being overly dismissive of a mindset you obviously don't understand. Of course being anti-AI is about decent living conditions for humans. Most of us don't believe in singularity or Matrix-style threats.
But current AI is actively destroying our breathable/livable planet by drawing unmatched quantities of resources (see also DRAM shortage, etc), all the while exploiting millions of non-union workers across the world (for classification/transcription/review), and all this for two goals:
1) try to replace human labor: problem is we know any extracted value (if at all) will benefit the bourgeoisie and will never be redistributed to the masses, because that's exactly what happened with the previous industrial revolutions (Asimov-style socialism is not exactly around the corner)
2) try to surveil everyone with cameras and microphones everywhere, and build armed (semi-)autonomous robots to guard our bourgeois masters and their data centers
There is nothing in this entire project that can be interpreted to benefit the workers. People opposing AI are just lucid about who that's benefiting, and in that sense the luddite comparison is very appropriate.
You have misinterpreted my comment. But I concede that I should have written it more clearly.
I divide anti-AI people into two groups. Those who don’t like AI because of what it is, and those who don’t like it because of its impact on society. Naturally there is an overlap.
Luddites were not opposed to the technology. So the comparison to them is only correct for the latter group.
Not talking about LLMs on a forum is not going to change anything in the grand scheme of things. It could be a protest, but I see it more (the feeling I get from the announcement) as a means to protect the forum from being overrun regardless whether AI is ultimately good or bad.
Also note that nowhere in my comment I have stated my position in this argument.
I'm not really convinced there's people who don't like AI "because of what it is". I mean, because of what it is, beyond any social/political considerations.
The only case i know of that is when there was an open letter with Sam Altman and other AI investors calling out the existential danger of AI, which in my view was a way to divert the debate from political questions to hypothetical Matrix/Terminator questions about consciousness and singularity.
really? is it so hard to believe that people dislike AI because it is unreliable, can't be trusted, changes how we work with code, takes the fun out of coding?
i am not worried about social consequences. society can adapt.
i am also not worried about energy use. we have endless clean energy if we can figure out how to use it.
yes, i am worried about society choosing the wrong adaption. that is, i believe we should train everyone to be teachers, doctors scientists, and artists. the stuff that AI should not be doing. but i am not worried about using AI for automation, putting people out of jobs. if we give them the opportunity to learn new jobs and,
IF, AND ONLY IF, we get AI to do it's work with 100% reliability and accuracy.
only then AI will be useful. i have tons of software projects that i'd like to get done. but i can't trust AI to do them for me, because i would spend even more time to verify the results than i would to code it myself.
so yeah, i absolutely don't like AI for what it is, a tool with limited uses that requires me to work in a way i don't want, if i want to benefit from it.
Assuming you're from the USA, your two main parties are exactly like that. The appearances have changed, but Obama drone-assassinating random children on the other side of the world was not much better than what Trump is doing.
Not defending Trump, to be clear, just saying US imperialism and fascism has much deeper roots and that removing Trump is not going to fix any issues the rest of the world has with the USA.
USA government is corrupt, true. Current admin is balls-out corrupt in ways that have a French legislator calling out that impeachment would have happened there. It's shockingly out in the open corrupt, and that's saying a lot because most of the people ripping us off want to be somewhat quiet about it and not draw attention.
I didn't hear about this french legislator, but that's funny given the level of rampant corruption in french government. Nothing new (see also Pasqua, Foccart, etc), but in the past decades the information was not widely available so it was at least possible to pretend not to know.
Much of the government including Macron himself are involved in corruption scandals. Others are involved in rape scandals. Others in fiscal fraud. But you're correct they're not as open about it as Trump is.
Unfortunately, i don't know of a complete reference resource. I'd be interested if you found one. A quick research later i found this CFR resource [1] which probably underestimates the number of civilians killed.
I remember reports at the time on the Intercept and other media about the entire kill chain. If i remember correctly, the policy was to count anyone who was not proved to be a civilian as an active enemy in the body count. There was this DOD/CIA press conference announcing they made a targeted killing and that their target assessment was mostly based on the individual's height.
Then there's of course Obama famously and publicly joking about his children's lovers suggesting they should behave or would get killed by « predator drones ». [2] Let me know if you dig interesting links on the topic!
> famously and publicly joking
...at the white house correspondents dinner. I think that context matters.
I also think drone strikes exacerbate public outrage much the way mass shootings do: if we want to decrease gun deaths, limiting AR-15s isn't the way to do it because the vast majority of gun deaths are handguns. But mass shootings upset people, so we outlaw the guns that upset them. Similarly with drones, people don't get as upset about tens of thousands killed in a broader war, they're put off by the smaller number of casualties caused by drones.
You would think that if the policy was as flawed as you describe it would be easier to find evidence of it now?
It was not better, it was less. US imperialism has deep roots, yes, but a large chunk of the world who would tolerate a moderate level of it, don't tolerate this level.
I hear rumblings about foreign companies disconnecting from American services and products. You don't turn large ships on a dime, but they are turning.
I don't think it was less, though only future historians will come up with actual numbers. It was less public, though.
Most of the world never tolerated it. Even when western governments tolerated it, the population did not; see also the huge worldwide demonstrations against the Iraq war.
I think the difference in perception is because the european oligarchy is now being effectively treated as was previously the rest of the world, so they're now taking a stance because they feel threatened, whereas they previously saw themselves as aligned with the US government no matter what.
> Does this also mean only using "standard" parts? Or does the manufacturer have to over-produce the parts for, lets say 7 years
Why not? I don't understand how it's legal for manufacturers to produce absolute trash that can't be replaced and will just end up in a landfill. I think 7 years is far from enough, but because computers evolve quickly maybe 15 years is ok. For the rest of electro-mechanical goods, 50 years should be the baseline.
If a car or fridge from 50 years ago is still working with proper maintenance, that should be the minimum to be expected from products released today.
Most of humanity has lived without police for most of its existence. It's not an inherent part of life. And in many places, the police is a very recent (few centuries old) invention with ties to oppressive structures such as slavery and colonialism.
Whether abolishing the police, or defunding the police (to deescalate the militarization), both are proposals formulated by serious academics and politicians, whether you agree or not. It's not virtue signalling. If anything, "defund the police" is still very badly regarded outside very small circles and there's no credit to be gained by holding such positions.
Uber is a very bad argument. In many parts of the world, the only reason they're profitable is because they're breaking the law. There has been much debate about it here in France and quite a few scandals, including how Macron when he was ministry of economy (before he became president) counseled and favored Uber to break labor law [1].
The government and courts are currently arguing whether Uber is legally the employer of the drivers [2], but that's not very debatable to be honest given the very clear subordination of drivers to Uber (one of the many criteria for a contractor to be legally reclassified as an employee).
They have taken all the power and benefits, and discarded all of the responsibilities and risks associated with employment. That's a strategy that only pays off through political corruption, and not a clear example that their profits are somehow unavoidable and that investing in Uber 10 years ago was wise.
Otherwise, investing in the mafia's drug trades might also be a lucrative opportunity. Which does not make it moral, nor a safe bet.
While I agree with you I feel your comment is moving the goalpost. The question was whether an new "disrupting" tech solution was going to be a flop or not. I think the question of whether the new thing is or should be legally constrained is yet another (interesting!) question.
Correct! My whole point was that whether that's a flip or a flop also depends on the legal environment and whether the law is actually enforced. Which is also applicable to AI and its massive copyright/copyleft violations at scale (whether or not that's legitimate or useful is yet another interesting question).
You could subtract out the French market and Uber would still be profitable.
Rebutting anti-tech arguments is hard because there's always another round of whataboutism to move the goalposts a little further.
My argument is that "tech is perfect and completely without fault". I was rebutting the arguments (more accurately, lack of a real argument) in this anti-tech blog post.
That blog post was definitely not anti-tech. Maybe you're not familiar with this term. The post was critical of technology from a social/political perspective (with arguments), as were the luddites, but that's not anti-tech.
Anti-tech primitivists [1] exist, though a minority on the political spectrum. I don't agree with your argument, but it may be more convincing without making a strawman of the original blogpost.
Hello,i don't mean to be dismissive but i think lawmaking definitely needs less AI and less pretendly-neutral summaries.
It's already a problem when researching a law proposal that dozens of news outlets will just copy-paste a bland summary of arguments from both sides, neither being explored fully.
I would recommend giving direct links to actually partisan information so people can situate the bill's intent and consequences in a broader context.
Where it helps:
- sometimes a bill's proponent is just an industry puppet whose talking points will be repeated in the media, but aren't solid enough to warrant a proper article… unlike opponents criticizing specific (for example deregulation) points
- sometimes, there are strong feelings and arguments on both sides of a bill and it makes sense to view them in their entirety; seeing one's side unhinged logic sometimes reveals more about the bill than the bill's text itself
- "same-side" opposition: sometimes a bill is perceived as "left-wing" or "right-wing" but receives opposition from the same side; for example, the democrat party is very divided on helping the rich vs taxing the rich, while the republican party is (less than 20 years ago) divided between hardcore authoritarian trumpists and libertarians defending civil liberties
All in all, i believe AI is a plight for society. We are only starting to understand the ecological and psychological costs. There are areas where machine learning can be useful (translation), but i strongly believe politics is not one of them. Please don't try to apply it to anything serious. Don't take it from me, take it from James Mickens in a talk where he explains both how ML works and how it related to the field of computer security:
That's not a fair assessment. Context: I hate Trump as much as Khomeini. A "both sides" treatment would be:
US & Israel illegally assassinate Iranian leader in bombing campaign, calling agression "necessity".
Now, if you'd like to lean to one side or the other, you can either:
- remove information about legality and the fact that they are the authors of the agression, add something about Iran being a threat to its neighbors
- or insist that any excuses provided by USA or Israel about nuclear weapons is 100% bogus as they have been claiming this for over 20 years
"We have no choice to do this horrible thing, but it may have slightly bad consequences for us" does not take the second side into consideration at all. It's very biased, and it's a very strong opinion in itself.
Of course i'm biased (though probably not like you mean), but that "both sides" depiction was fair and rather neutral. I'm personally very happy Khomenei is dead, and so are my iranian friends. But we are all very concerned that he is dead for the wrong reason, under a wrong pretext, and with very grim perspectives (see also what the US did in all the countries it bombed in the past 20 years).
I think Khomenei and Trump are two sides of the same coin: bloody authoritarianism and religious zealotry. They're both pretty bad, but one side in this conflict was clearly the aggressor, and denying that is in itself picking sides. One can both sympathize with a victim of unjust aggression, and at the same time thinking they're a profound piece of shit.
One could even point out that just a few years ago, Trump was very insistent about "no more wars", and that he regularly mockingly predicted that Obama would attack Iran to avoid talking about domestic policy. Turns out the hypocrisy level is high and he really is beyond a doubt the bad guy in this story, even if that does not make the iranian ayatollahs good guys by any measure.
Well it is very hard to believe they're guilty, at least to me. Too bad the news report does not provide any actual information about the case and the evidence (actual journalism beyond clickbaity headlines).
In environmental circles, Greenpeace is very well-known to be traitors working with big corporations to launder their image. They're opposed to sabotage and revolutionary tactics. Their activities are mostly fundraising and legal proceedings, and on the rare instance they perform so-called civil disobedience (such as deploying banners on nuclear plants), it is in very orderly fashion that doesn't provide much economic harm.
As a left-wing environmentalist, i wish such a strong voice as Greenpeace was capable to incite people to rise against the greedy corporations destroying our planet. I just don't see that happening, neither here in France nor in the USA.
Contrasting specific technological and social artifacts with a form of economic organization and legal structures without noting how different they are is a cheap and weak form of argument.
If you want to insist that only greedy corporations could have made portable hand-held network connected computing devices possible, then make that point. If you want to insist that there could be no automobile or refueling system without a system in which corporate profits primarily are directed towards capital rather than labor, then make that point. If you find it impossible that powered flight would exist at a price where most people could afford it without specific laws controlling corporate liability and legal fiduciary responsibility, than make that point.
But "ah, so you use human-created technology while criticizing the organizations that make it" isn't really the winning argument that you appear to think it is.
> If you want to insist that only greedy corporations could have made portable hand-held network connected computing devices possible, then make that point.
It burns oil and emits CO2. Doesn't matter who makes it or if they are "greedy." Physics doesn't care about human emotions.
> If you want to insist that there could be no automobile or refueling system without a system in which corporate profits primarily are directed towards capital rather than labor, then make that point.
It burns oil and emits CO2. Physics doesn't care about accounting.
> If you find it impossible that powered flight would exist at a price where most people could afford it without specific laws controlling corporate liability and legal fiduciary responsibility, than make that point.
It burns oil and emits CO2. It doesn't matter what the price to the end user is or who liability. Physics does not care about lawyers.
> But "ah, so you use human-created technology while criticizing the organizations that make it" isn't really the winning argument that you appear to think it is.
If your criticism is about global warming, then yes it is a wining argument because the organizations are irrelevant. It burns oil and emits CO2. Physics doesn't care about human organizations.
The GP made an observation about "greedy corporations".
You sarcastically wrote
> Posted from your iphone while driving to the gas station to fill up? Where did you fly to for your last vacation?
as if using any of those technologies means that you have no standing to criticize "greedy corporations".
I've pointed out the (potential) disconnect between the technologies and the corporations, and you've now wandered off into "fossil fuels do stuff, physics matters" which of course is true but as before, has nothing to do with someone criticizing what they see as/claim are "greedy corporations".
Nice try, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for your deflection. GP did not complain about "greedy corporations." He complained about "greedy corporations destroying our planet." They aren't destroying our planet. You, GP, and I are destroying our planet. But unlike you and GP, I am an adult and I don't try to blame other people for my actions.
Well, corporations are destroying our planet, whatever our individual consumption patterns are. I could be living in the woods and that would not change. I'm not denying we have a share of personal responsibility in profiting from this ecocidal system: i'm saying individuals have no choice and no power over this, and social change is produced on a bigger level.
And so could the rest of us. If we did, there would be no CO2 emissions and, therefore, no global warming. But we don't choose to do this because we would rather live with modern convenience.
- it's technically illegal for me to do that here in France, even if i'm the legal owner of the woods
- it could be a choice to live low-tech alternative lifestyles, if there was not active attacks by the State and corporations to destroy any kind of alternative means of survival, such as the very violent processes over the past few centuries to destroy subsistance farming and non-monetary exchanges (laws & regulations, expropriations, imprisonment and murder of political opposition such as during the Paris Commune)
- it doesn't matter what we personally and individually do: this is a problem at scale that can only be addressed at scale, and pretending otherwise is a bad faith argument on either side ("recycle your plastic bottles to save the planet")
- there's a wide range of possibilities for durable/repairable goods and sustainable lifestyles in between primitivism and our current ecocidal nightmare: to frame political choices as a binary is very limited or dishonest from an intellectual perspective
The main issue here is the implication of human free will.
We're driven by our herd instinct and subconscious manipulation. The way Edward Bernays and others like him have guided us to consumption.
To break free from this woud require either the summoning of collective free will or the brainwashing to keep the eternally growing consumption to cease.
The decision to keep manipulating the masses is something the decision makers behind corporations and governments either enable or actively participate in, but for individual it is extremely unlikely to break this machine.
Once again, you're making an implicit claim about all the nice things in contemporary civilization (or least the list you gave), in this case that their mere existence is "destroying our planet". But you haven't made that case, and it is far from obvious that it is true. It could be true ... but I'm also to the imagined version of a political & economic system that had still produced portable hand-held network connected computing devices and long distance personal transportation vehicles without "destroying our planet".
What I cannot imagine, however, is an alternative that still featured "greedy corporations" without the "destroying our planet" part.
> This is precisely why there are multiple protocols out there and bridges between them.
Yes, that's great! What's not great is Bluesky attempting a hostile takeover on federated and decentralized social networks. It's been advertised from day 1 as an alternative to centralized silos and it's a lie. [0]
To be fair, projects like Blacksky try to decentralize it (except the identity server, as it's impossible??), and there's now a vibrant developer community around ATProto. That doesn't make the centralization and false marketing claims any less problematic.
Develop the protocol you want. Don't lure my friends into it by pretending it's something that it's not.
In my (arguably not very representative) circles, unlike the big Facebook->Instagram migration, which was motivated by "i don't like that it's run by a Silicon Valley tech-bro neofascist, but that's where everyone's at", the Twitter->Bluesky migration was motivated by "finally an alternative that's not centralized so it can't be bought and controlled by american neonazis".
> Can you clarify this?
Well Bluesky's number 1 selling point was always decentralization. Just looking at a few past articles from the wikipedia page's sources:
"Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announces a new research team, called Bluesky, to create a set of open and decentralized technical standards for social media platforms" (CNBC)
"Bluesky now operates as a “decentralized” social media platform, which means users can create their own servers on which they can store data and set their own rules" (Forbes)
To be fair, they did fit some of the bill which is now why we're complained that Bluesky is not 100% federated/decentralized. And they did improve compared to AP in terms of nomadic identity and letting users know everything on the platform is public (unlike Mastodon where people had a false sense of security).
I think this is an unfair take. ODF is an actual file format, while OOXML is a serialization format for Microsoft Office specifics, as debated here 6 months ago. [0]
Beyond marketing fluff, I don't think anybody at Microsoft genuinely believes they have an "open office format" or an actual "standardization". Even Apple back in the day had to reverse-engineer the Microsoft formats. [1]
Whether you'd like to denounce OnlyOffice taking part in this masquerade or not is a political issue. But giving Microsoft any form of benefit of the doubt on this matter is historically wrong and, I believe, ethically evil.
What is an “actual file format”? Every file format is a serialisation of some kind of data-model. I'm sure the OpenDocument data-model might be simpler and cleaner in some ways than the Office Open XML one. But for something with the complexity of an office document, you can't escape the fact that every file format is full of assumptions about the application interacting with it. I find the examples in the article from [0] unconvincing, it reminds me of arguments about programming language syntax.
(I do not doubt that the OOXML standard is a mess though.)
I'm sorry you were not convinced. Of course a "file format" could be anything. I personally am convinced that a standard file format (filed for ISO) should have proper semantics that precisely escape assumptions about the application's internal state and framework.
That's why administrative interop formats are standardized XML files with a schema and not a random Oracle SQL export from any given entity with their custom database layout.
Correct. I simply placed it for historical context on Microsoft being hostile to competition, interoperability and free software for much longer than OOXML has existed.
Indeed, the basic point is fine - just 2 competitors standing up for their own choice - but the use of the words "and most open format" ruins the GP's point and perhaps is the reason for the downvotes. There's no way one can argue that Microsoft believes their format is the most open.
But current AI is actively destroying our breathable/livable planet by drawing unmatched quantities of resources (see also DRAM shortage, etc), all the while exploiting millions of non-union workers across the world (for classification/transcription/review), and all this for two goals:
1) try to replace human labor: problem is we know any extracted value (if at all) will benefit the bourgeoisie and will never be redistributed to the masses, because that's exactly what happened with the previous industrial revolutions (Asimov-style socialism is not exactly around the corner)
2) try to surveil everyone with cameras and microphones everywhere, and build armed (semi-)autonomous robots to guard our bourgeois masters and their data centers
There is nothing in this entire project that can be interpreted to benefit the workers. People opposing AI are just lucid about who that's benefiting, and in that sense the luddite comparison is very appropriate.
reply