Most of these idealistic pieces about AI seem to come from senior, established or wealthy people who aren't very exposed to the labor market. In that view, the question of AI and its transformation is almost philosophical like this piece.
It's more a question of survival if you're labor though. It's very transformative tech but it's coming at a time when the scales are heavily tilted in favor of capital over labor, the government is the most corrupt its ever been and AI is going to make that much more extreme. It doesn't matter how amazing the technology is if all the benefits are going to accrue to the same few people who already have everything and destroy everyone else's bargaining power.
While it is certainly right, I also find the take to be a bit fatalistic.
Nothing in this world is set in stone and everything can be changed if someone just injects enough energy into doing so.
This usually doesn't happen, as things often aren't as bad as they may seem, because lethargy and inertia are a thing and of course because self-preservation is an instinctual thing in humans. It could though.
As long as the status quo isn't defended by an infinitely scaling robotic enforcement war machine, physical leverage is always available. Just - depending on the scenario - at a steep price, of course.
___
A lot of the bad in the world hinges on effective PR, insisting that the bad is inevitable and resistance is futile. You're supposed to feel this exact despair and choose to do nothing.
Don't support the bad causes by merely replicating it. (Which is not to say that we shouldn't be talking about these real differences you've pointed out, but we should probably do so differently.)
It was certainly not ideal that the end of ZIRP and the emergence of AI occurred simultaneously.
But, even as someone who is "labor" the one thing I appreciate about the situation is that the level of bullshit in companies has significantly declined.
Everyone seems hyper focused and results oriented. Maybe just my bubble.
Most people who oppose AI don’t oppose it because it’s so good it can replace us. They oppose it because, in their own words, they think it’s hype and it doesn’t work. The first step is to collectively agree that yes, AI is powerful and it can replace us at work. Then we can speak about how to protect livelihood. How does one even have a discussion when the other side doesn’t even believe in the capabilities of AI?
Edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted because there are replies literally taking the exact position that I'm saying is more prevalent.
For me it's more that it doesn't matter whether it works or not, because funneling that wealth into those hands is reason enough to stop it in either case.
I 'oppose' Ai for exactly the reasons parent mentions, seems like most common folks over long term will lose much more than they could ever gain from it. Societal loss by definition, on massive scale.
Don't reduce opposition to something you like to some primitive irrational luddites, thats cheap and doesn't represent reality.
I wouldn't take that as a given. We don't know how AI will play out or how it will transform our lives. We could look to the industrial revolution to make a prediction, but the political, social and technological conditions today are hard to compare with those of Victorian England.
What AI lacks, I think, is a positive vision. The narrative is dictated by a small Silicon Valley subculture that unfortunately also happens to be a doomsday cult, and it is amplified by a media landscape hungry for the next clickbait headline.
By contrast, people in China seem a lot more relaxed and optimistic about AI. There are worries there too, but not to the same extent as in the West.
It would be interesting to compare the sentiment about AI with sentiment about computers in the 1950s. I think it reflects the stress of precarious employment more than anything else.
>“AI is overhyped or less useful than claimed” was substantially more prevalent than “AI is genuinely capable and will take people’s jobs.” That held across two random samples of recent HN comments.
To steel-man your position, it is true that Bernie Sanders also opposes AI because it can cause automation. And that my bubble in tech might be biased because it consists of a certain kind of cynical person to think of everything as hype.
"AI is not as good as it is hyped up to be" and "AI is 'good enough' for the overlords to replace some amount of workers, or at least to leverage into depressing their wages significantly and permanently" are not mutually exclusive claims. You don't have to buy the hype to agree that it is dangerous.
A chimp with a gun is not dangerous because of how good a shot he is.
I am also an optimist about AI, although I worry about the labor aspect as well (as a leftist I see the class aspect of this, on the other hand, as a computer programmer, computers were also originally meant to replace human labor, and we all see what happened).
My view is, current top AIs do multiple different things:
1. Interpret and output natural language
2. Do formal logical reasoning
3. Do informal logical reasoning
4. Provide encyclopedic knowledge
5. Discern vague instructions/statements and fill the most likely gaps (kind of error correction)
6. Serve as a model of the human mind, a proxy for a person
7. Translate between different languages, formal and informal
All these things are combined in these huge, hard-to-understand blobs of weights. I think humanity would be better off by understanding each aspect separately, but disentangling them will take decades of philosophical research. So there is a lot of interesting work ahead of us.
In contrast to what these philosophical pieces tend to convey, the main crisis in mathematics is a labour one.
Mathematitians exchanged proofs for employment. That was the currency. Now they cannot use that currency anymore, so the question is how does someone know if they should hire an unknow person or not?
Philosophicaly who cares if you like more theory building or theorem proving? You dont need to convince anyone. The only solution is to be curious and follow your interests and naturally humanity will redefine what the new mathematics feels like.
You cannot convince anyone about it, its not something rational.
I share the optimism here. Connecting dots across knowledge, lived experience and purpose remains, to me, a deeply human pursuit. The more AI discovers, the more possibilities we have to connect those discoveries to questions that matter to us.
Unfortunately I don’t see much evidence of AI connecting dots. What’s interesting to me is that this is more of a run time or inference problem, instead of emergent from training itself.
For example, if there were hypothetically some dots to be connected between the world war and some geological event - you need to make AI brute force and do an O(N) scan at run time. But it wouldn’t have learned it during training. Why?
AI is very task-driven, it would do whatever is necessary to complete the task, no more. All these evidences of AI going rogue is just them doing whatever they can to achieve the task.
a good way to frame one of AI’s limitations. my answer: because AI has no will. that also conveniently answers why AI won’t (can’t) end humanity. it’s indifferent if you can even call it that.
It is not indifferent, if it follows a goal. Then it sometimes does anything to meet that goal - see the old example of paperclip optimizer - that became a way more realistic scenario in my opinion of what we have seen with hordes of agents plotting and planning. That does not require consciousness or a genuine will it seems.
Most of these idealistic pieces about AI seem to come from senior, established or wealthy people who aren't very exposed to the labor market. In that view, the question of AI and its transformation is almost philosophical like this piece.
It's more a question of survival if you're labor though. It's very transformative tech but it's coming at a time when the scales are heavily tilted in favor of capital over labor, the government is the most corrupt its ever been and AI is going to make that much more extreme. It doesn't matter how amazing the technology is if all the benefits are going to accrue to the same few people who already have everything and destroy everyone else's bargaining power.
While it is certainly right, I also find the take to be a bit fatalistic. Nothing in this world is set in stone and everything can be changed if someone just injects enough energy into doing so.
This usually doesn't happen, as things often aren't as bad as they may seem, because lethargy and inertia are a thing and of course because self-preservation is an instinctual thing in humans. It could though.
As long as the status quo isn't defended by an infinitely scaling robotic enforcement war machine, physical leverage is always available. Just - depending on the scenario - at a steep price, of course.
___
A lot of the bad in the world hinges on effective PR, insisting that the bad is inevitable and resistance is futile. You're supposed to feel this exact despair and choose to do nothing.
Don't support the bad causes by merely replicating it. (Which is not to say that we shouldn't be talking about these real differences you've pointed out, but we should probably do so differently.)
It was certainly not ideal that the end of ZIRP and the emergence of AI occurred simultaneously.
But, even as someone who is "labor" the one thing I appreciate about the situation is that the level of bullshit in companies has significantly declined.
Everyone seems hyper focused and results oriented. Maybe just my bubble.
Is mathematics research even a job you pursue if survival is the question?
Most people who oppose AI don’t oppose it because it’s so good it can replace us. They oppose it because, in their own words, they think it’s hype and it doesn’t work. The first step is to collectively agree that yes, AI is powerful and it can replace us at work. Then we can speak about how to protect livelihood. How does one even have a discussion when the other side doesn’t even believe in the capabilities of AI?
Edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted because there are replies literally taking the exact position that I'm saying is more prevalent.
> They oppose it because, in their own words, they think it’s hype and it doesn’t work.
This was maybe true a year ago, but is certainly not true any more.
The laments these days almost always begin with the assertion that the AI does work.
Mostly it's about funneling even more wealth into the hands of the richest and the incredible environmental penalty.
For me it's more that it doesn't matter whether it works or not, because funneling that wealth into those hands is reason enough to stop it in either case.
It certainly works for software, but we may be hitting diminishing returns on software. You may argue it's been a social net negative for a decade.
I 'oppose' Ai for exactly the reasons parent mentions, seems like most common folks over long term will lose much more than they could ever gain from it. Societal loss by definition, on massive scale.
Don't reduce opposition to something you like to some primitive irrational luddites, thats cheap and doesn't represent reality.
I wouldn't take that as a given. We don't know how AI will play out or how it will transform our lives. We could look to the industrial revolution to make a prediction, but the political, social and technological conditions today are hard to compare with those of Victorian England.
What AI lacks, I think, is a positive vision. The narrative is dictated by a small Silicon Valley subculture that unfortunately also happens to be a doomsday cult, and it is amplified by a media landscape hungry for the next clickbait headline.
By contrast, people in China seem a lot more relaxed and optimistic about AI. There are worries there too, but not to the same extent as in the West.
It would be interesting to compare the sentiment about AI with sentiment about computers in the 1950s. I think it reflects the stress of precarious employment more than anything else.
I respectfully disagree. Everyone I speak to in my circle, as well as in HN oppose AI because it is sold as much more capable than it actually is.
I asked ChatGPT to sample comments in HN without bias and find out which mode of opposition is more popular. Here's what it said
https://chatgpt.com/share/6abf5e0e-c45c-83eb-a3f6-b676b08f13...
>“AI is overhyped or less useful than claimed” was substantially more prevalent than “AI is genuinely capable and will take people’s jobs.” That held across two random samples of recent HN comments.
To steel-man your position, it is true that Bernie Sanders also opposes AI because it can cause automation. And that my bubble in tech might be biased because it consists of a certain kind of cynical person to think of everything as hype.
"AI is not as good as it is hyped up to be" and "AI is 'good enough' for the overlords to replace some amount of workers, or at least to leverage into depressing their wages significantly and permanently" are not mutually exclusive claims. You don't have to buy the hype to agree that it is dangerous.
A chimp with a gun is not dangerous because of how good a shot he is.
I’m just waiting for blue chip company boards to start replacing CROs with agents. I’m thinking it will happen within the next 2 years
I am also an optimist about AI, although I worry about the labor aspect as well (as a leftist I see the class aspect of this, on the other hand, as a computer programmer, computers were also originally meant to replace human labor, and we all see what happened).
My view is, current top AIs do multiple different things:
1. Interpret and output natural language
2. Do formal logical reasoning
3. Do informal logical reasoning
4. Provide encyclopedic knowledge
5. Discern vague instructions/statements and fill the most likely gaps (kind of error correction)
6. Serve as a model of the human mind, a proxy for a person
7. Translate between different languages, formal and informal
All these things are combined in these huge, hard-to-understand blobs of weights. I think humanity would be better off by understanding each aspect separately, but disentangling them will take decades of philosophical research. So there is a lot of interesting work ahead of us.
In contrast to what these philosophical pieces tend to convey, the main crisis in mathematics is a labour one.
Mathematitians exchanged proofs for employment. That was the currency. Now they cannot use that currency anymore, so the question is how does someone know if they should hire an unknow person or not?
Philosophicaly who cares if you like more theory building or theorem proving? You dont need to convince anyone. The only solution is to be curious and follow your interests and naturally humanity will redefine what the new mathematics feels like.
You cannot convince anyone about it, its not something rational.
I share the optimism here. Connecting dots across knowledge, lived experience and purpose remains, to me, a deeply human pursuit. The more AI discovers, the more possibilities we have to connect those discoveries to questions that matter to us.
Unfortunately I don’t see much evidence of AI connecting dots. What’s interesting to me is that this is more of a run time or inference problem, instead of emergent from training itself.
For example, if there were hypothetically some dots to be connected between the world war and some geological event - you need to make AI brute force and do an O(N) scan at run time. But it wouldn’t have learned it during training. Why?
AI is very task-driven, it would do whatever is necessary to complete the task, no more. All these evidences of AI going rogue is just them doing whatever they can to achieve the task.
a good way to frame one of AI’s limitations. my answer: because AI has no will. that also conveniently answers why AI won’t (can’t) end humanity. it’s indifferent if you can even call it that.
It is not indifferent, if it follows a goal. Then it sometimes does anything to meet that goal - see the old example of paperclip optimizer - that became a way more realistic scenario in my opinion of what we have seen with hordes of agents plotting and planning. That does not require consciousness or a genuine will it seems.
Buzzard is such a good writer. Read it all the way to the end - it gets (even) better as it goes along.
You might say his prose is very lean.
(Sorry (?))
As a non mathematician I think it could be kind of interesting to see what the AI can come up with.
sounds like bargaining to me.
The shape of five stages of grief is something I see recurring in AI discourse. It also happened with programmers - they are currently at bargaining.
Some are still at denial. “It’s all hype like NFT and crypto, the bubble will pop soon”.