I'm in the Netherlands as you can tell and 'even' we are not that much more progressive. There is currently a massive farmer uprising and everybody is complaining literally non-stop about just about everything. Meanwhile nobody has even tried GPT. I get pitchforked even in my own country for saying we need to stop focusing on breeding cows and get (and stay) better at real tech.
Then again, my social skills are not really up there..
EDIT: "real tech", I know. Simplification. I know it's hard and I know it's important we eat, but countries with like 5000% more arable land can provide for us.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/these-angry-dutc...
Just one sample quote, but it's worth reading it all:
> The dispute over nitrogen permits has put Microsoft’s data center developments in direct opposition to an increasingly powerful farming community. Earlier this month, a new political force, called the Farmer Citizen Movement (BBB), did so well in provincial elections, it became the joint-largest party in the Dutch Senate. The party, which emerged in response to the nitrogen crisis, also has strong views on data centers. “We think the data center is unnecessary,” says Ingrid de Sain, farmer turned party leader of the BBB in North Holland, referring to the Microsoft complex. “It is a waste of fertile soil to put the data centers boxes here. The BBB is against this.”
And another one because it shows some of the thoughts:
> “Of course, we need some data centers,” he says. But he wants us to talk about restructuring the way the Internet works so they are not so necessary. “We should be having the philosophical debate of what do we do with all our data? I don’t think we need to store everything online in a central place.”
I'm waiting for them to suggest it should be moved to the cloud rather than put in data centres.
This is a symptom of widespread technological illiteracy, globally (at least in the west)
> Ruiter says he’s continued to talk about data centers because he wants to remind people that “the cloud” they’ve come to rely on isn’t just an ethereal concept—it’s something that has a physical manifestation, here in the farmland of North Holland. He worries that growing demand for data storage from people, and also, increasingly, AI, will just mean more and more hyperscale facilities.
And vast swathes of technologists are insanely over-enthusiastic about technical change, to the point of it resembling a religion (and the singularitarians are like the monks who self-immolate themselves, except they want to immolate all the rest of us, too).
Frankly, it's probably far wiser to take it slow than charge full speed ahead for no good reason and just hope you can fix the problems you cause.
I asked a group 10 friends, none of who work in tech, about what they think about ChatGPT and then consensus is that it's a slightly better Google in certain situations. None of them are worried that it's going to put them out of work, take over the world, or violate their privacy. I have to agree with them. I think all this AI stuff is way overhyped, just like all the other fads that came before: VR, crypto, drone delivery, CRISPR, autonomous vehicles, metaverse, etc.
I remember having the exact same discussions on HN about autonomous vehicles over a decade ago. The consensus then was that autonomous vehicles would make truck and taxi drivers obsolete within 5 years, and that this massive, sudden loss of jobs would cause a lot of social unrest. Yet here we are in 2023 and there are a grand total of zero driverless trucks on the road. I'm not saying AV tech is totally useless or that we won't someday get to a world where a large percentage of vehicles are self-driven, but it's clear now that the hype and fear around them was heavily exaggerated.
I feel the same way about ChatGPT. It's definitely cool and impressive, but the hype will die down once people realize how truly limited it is.
Edit: I do think there is a slight difference from your example here. Trucks are already here and driving them is a known thing and it is easy to see how it could work (making it work is still hard). Automating cognition itself is automating a nearly unknown skill. Nobody quite knows what it is we are doing and what box we are opening.
That is entirely reasonable ask, especially when the harm could be large. It's a lot harder (and often impossible) to put a genie back in a bottle once it's out.
> I remember having the exact same discussions on HN about autonomous vehicles over a decade ago. The consensus then was that autonomous vehicles would make truck and taxi drivers obsolete within 5 years, and that this massive, sudden loss of jobs would cause a lot of social unrest.
So some internet commenters' schedule was wrong, but that doesn't mean the bigger point was wrong. Some people thought we'd die in a nuclear war in the 80s, and they'd still be prescient if it turns out we die in on in the 2030s.
Technologists tend to be pathologically optimistic about technology, and tend to hand wave away the problems it will cause. It's important to keep that attitude in check, because they sure as hell don't seem to have the wisdom to do it themselves.
Massive simplification, but I don't think it's a completely unfair characterisation.
Well, It's easy to see why you get backlash when you tell people to change their way of life, get asked for a reason, and say you don't care.
Also, reverse the tables: If someone comes suggesting to you to ban computers and the Internet completely and pull a study out (Internet damages brain). Would you be happy, offended, indifferent... okay I hope you get the point.
Your country is very lucky to have its own high-quality farmland and the culture around it. The food there is of such a quality that "countries with like 5000% more arable land" will never have a chance at of having. See the US, for all its land, most of the food is low in nutrition or outright toxic.
I am European, and I just proved it by complaining about complainers :)
And even capital gains are taxed far less than income.
I think it's more that the US was made up of immigrants so it got to start anew without a massive established aristocracy and monarchies.
There is an issue on the capital gain / income in the E.U., but my understanding was that the U.S. was even worse in that regard (people can live of their salary through most of Europe).