I can't help but feel that any attempts at regulating AI will just mean that the breakthroughs will happen in other countries.
The US and the EU have some of the strictest aircraft regulations and yet Boeing and Airbus are the world leaders.
Sure, people can build gpu farms in Somalia if they want to, but I doubt they will unless the regulation is so draconian that it completely stifles all progress.
Opposite anecdote as far as the EU. They are the first to regulate tech and no major tech company has come out of Europe.
It's not like we must either stop in our tracks or allow every coked-up startup founder to do whatever they think will get them on the cover of Forbes. Also, pursuing this tech with wanton abandon won't stop, say, China from progressing with their own efforts.
It reminds me of the Vulnerable World Hypothesis - that at any moment someone could invent something so dangerous that it destroys humanity. Given enough time and technological development this outcome becomes inevitable, and ergo we must put brain implants in every child to limit creativity. Do you see the problem?
That didn't seem to be a problem when it happened to blue collars. In fact, you could say that it was deliberately legislated.
What's wrong with letting the market speak? Since apparently the white collar class celebrates, while chastising and legislating away the jobs of the blue collar class, apparently it's different when the white collar jobs are at risk, and we must not let the market work? Are you ignoring the massive wave of hysteria, including this article, for the last several months? Straight from the 'white collar' class.
If the AI is so powerful at whatever bullshit job the white collar worker has, and you want to make white collar workers the glorified elevator attendant, be my guest. But it certainly reveals a glaring hypocrisy, that jobs only matter when they're well-off people's jobs, but fuck the average joe when it comes to their skills and livelihood, they should just "re-skill!"
The idea that mid and late career tech, creative, medical, etc. professional will be able to easily "reskill," or that there will be good jobs for them if they manage to, is magical thinking.
> What's wrong with letting the market speak? Since apparently the white collar class celebrates, while chastising and legislating away the jobs of the blue collar class, apparently it's different when the white collar jobs are at risk, and we must not let the market work? Are you ignoring the massive wave of hysteria, including this article, for the last several months? Straight from the 'white collar' class.
There's a lot going on here but concentrating on your core point: saying "let the market work" without being curious about what the actual human beings involved are actually going to do is nothing more than your thinking money is more important than human life and that people are only as important as their commercial potential. Why beat around the bush? To put it lightly, I disagree.
> If the AI is so powerful at whatever bullshit job the white collar worker has, and you want to make white collar workers the glorified elevator attendant, be my guest. But it certainly reveals a glaring hypocrisy, that jobs only matter when they're well-off people's jobs, but fuck the average joe when it comes to their skills and livelihood, they should just "re-skill!"
Once again, I'm not really sure where you get this idea that I'm being a hypocrite here considering that I've been very consistent for decades about it being pretty bullshit how our society treats obsoleted workers like used condoms and says "well that's the market!" If you want to go argue that point with someone else who actually has that opinion, feel free.
I can tell that we're not going to get anywhere because free market zealots have a philosophically different understanding of human worth than I do.
>The idea that mid and late career tech, creative, medical, etc. professional will be able to easily "reskill," or that there will be good jobs for them if they manage to, is magical thinking
The jobs aren't going anywhere. Some will be made redundant, a lot will be augmented, and if we're so lucky, there will be more content shoveled out by the text predictor than ever before (garbage.) There is no medical, tech, or "truly" creative professional that is going to be replaced wholly by an LLM or diffusion model, not anytime soon. I'm assuming you're referencing the "study" done on reddit with /r/AskDoctors, and it's a laughable study. Certainly, docs can augment themselves, and they should, but not wholly rely on the model. Even 70B+ LLMs do not produce consistent facts, they produce plausibility, despite the facts most definitely being in their corpus. They predict. If you read Microsoft/OpenAI's paper around a month ago, it appears that RLHF actually reduces the quality in many aspects, despite it increasing the quality of output for whatever they deem quality elsewhere, so it's a double edged source instead of "add more tokens" + "add more layers."
But more importantly, new jobs will come, more than before.
>without being curious about what the actual human beings involved
I'm back in the rust belt with family after moving around the US for software jobs in the last five years, I see it first hand.
LLMs are like Google on steroids for a (compressed) corpus (the internet.) But you have to know that it's simply predicting. It's plausibilities. Once you know their limitations in that respect, they are useful.