“I also think that ultimately, the AI critics, Pause AI folks, leftists, doomers, effective altruists, and, honestly, most of the public, want a lot of the same things…”
That’s a really important point that easily gets lost in the day-to-day debates (some civil, some not) between those groups. The interests of “we the people” have a lot more in common when contrasted against the interests of the tech oligarchs.
I'll admit that I am generally sympathetic to the x-risk arguments, and in favor of a ban on superintelligence, so I have that bias. But:
> But not only would [a pause] be challenging to land politically
and
> The next steps would be towards moving AI under public control [...] Dismantling the whole industrial project as currently structured should be on the table, too
A pause seems, to me, to be an order of magnitude easier to achieve politically! We currently have two bills (in the US and UK) to ban superintelligence; a de facto pause for the labs who are racing towards just that. As far as I know, we do not have any desire from politicians to nationalise or shut down the labs entirely.
Interesting angle. There are others who make the same overall point - that doomsday rhetoric obscures actual harm being done now by humans - but they want us to ditch the doomsday rhetoric entirely because it's part of the cycle of hype (e.g. Bender and Hanna in The AI Con.) You're arguing for the strategic value of doomerism (at least this iteration), because it will get more people on board against big tech. I wonder, how to get the strategic value without propping up the framing hype?
I disagree that we don’t need to worry about extinction - if we agree AI could cause a catastrophe then it’s a difference of degree we’re arguing about, and I can’t say confidently the degree somehow can’t reach a very high level - but I appreciate that you recognize we are fighting for the same outcome; regulation on these dangerous and reckless companies. The “It’s all hype” camp is doing more to advocate for deregulation than the companies own PR teams.
It's just amazing timing that all this doomerism has come up just as the mainstream media was starting to cover the growing AI debt bubble. Took that right off the headlines, didn't it.
It's the purposes of fascism that run through "AI"... the most powerful and inevitable thing ever that is compatable with Peter Thiel's freedom... that mean we should reject it.
Cancer will be forgotten to be cured and climate change will devastate populations and livelihoods.... but at least we can bear witness to the empathy of trans humanists and megalomania of c##ts.
“I also think that ultimately, the AI critics, Pause AI folks, leftists, doomers, effective altruists, and, honestly, most of the public, want a lot of the same things…”
That’s a really important point that easily gets lost in the day-to-day debates (some civil, some not) between those groups. The interests of “we the people” have a lot more in common when contrasted against the interests of the tech oligarchs.
I'll admit that I am generally sympathetic to the x-risk arguments, and in favor of a ban on superintelligence, so I have that bias. But:
> But not only would [a pause] be challenging to land politically
and
> The next steps would be towards moving AI under public control [...] Dismantling the whole industrial project as currently structured should be on the table, too
A pause seems, to me, to be an order of magnitude easier to achieve politically! We currently have two bills (in the US and UK) to ban superintelligence; a de facto pause for the labs who are racing towards just that. As far as I know, we do not have any desire from politicians to nationalise or shut down the labs entirely.
Interesting angle. There are others who make the same overall point - that doomsday rhetoric obscures actual harm being done now by humans - but they want us to ditch the doomsday rhetoric entirely because it's part of the cycle of hype (e.g. Bender and Hanna in The AI Con.) You're arguing for the strategic value of doomerism (at least this iteration), because it will get more people on board against big tech. I wonder, how to get the strategic value without propping up the framing hype?
I disagree that we don’t need to worry about extinction - if we agree AI could cause a catastrophe then it’s a difference of degree we’re arguing about, and I can’t say confidently the degree somehow can’t reach a very high level - but I appreciate that you recognize we are fighting for the same outcome; regulation on these dangerous and reckless companies. The “It’s all hype” camp is doing more to advocate for deregulation than the companies own PR teams.
And he still needs LOTS of money!
It's just amazing timing that all this doomerism has come up just as the mainstream media was starting to cover the growing AI debt bubble. Took that right off the headlines, didn't it.
Great title! Philip K. Dick would be proud.
It's the purposes of fascism that run through "AI"... the most powerful and inevitable thing ever that is compatable with Peter Thiel's freedom... that mean we should reject it.
Cancer will be forgotten to be cured and climate change will devastate populations and livelihoods.... but at least we can bear witness to the empathy of trans humanists and megalomania of c##ts.