Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ukv | Hacker News Reader

I think anti-machine-learning suffers a similar problem to anti-GMO in that animosity directed primarily towards the technology itself easily loses aim on opposing exploitative power structures, sometimes instead even achieving the opposite.

I see big petitions against "irresponsible open source models", calls for expansion of IP laws such as to make "styles" into private property, and praise of Getty/Universal/RIAA. Repeatedly the target of ire seems to be just someone experimenting with Stable Diffusion, or a free book analysis tool[0], with disproportionately little focus on issues like employee surveillance.

[0]: https://mashable.com/article/prosecraft-novel-ai-analysis-sh...

View on HN

> I think anti-machine-learning suffers a similar problem to anti-GMO in that animosity directed primarily towards the technology itself easily loses aim on opposing exploitative power structures, sometimes instead even achieving the opposite.

This misses how technology actually works. Technology is a lever, or amplifier of human will. There has always been a dark side to human nature, but the amount of damage a single human could do was historically capped by physical limitations to their power. For example, a crazy person in 1000 AD armed with a broad sword could not kill millions of people, regardless of their desire and intent. However, a crazy person in 2024 with access to a hydrogen bomb could theoretically kill billions.

The moral of the story here is that even the most moral among us have some level of darkness in their soul and technology gives us far more power than we have the ability to handle responsibly, given our innate human flaws.

People think we can somehow manage AI when we can't even manage social media effectively.

>However, a crazy person in 2024 with access to a hydrogen bomb could theoretically kill billions.

People have been predicting this possibility ever since H-bombs existed. It's been a common trope in fiction -- Peter George's 1958 novel "Red Alert" featured a mad US general who starts WWIII (it's the novel that Kubrick adapted to make his Dr. Strangelove, although he made it a comedy and George was being serious).

> People have been predicting this possibility ever since H-bombs existed. It's been a common trope in fiction

First, this misses the point entirely. The H-bomb was just an example. The point is that technology allows an individual with access to the right tools the ability to scale their will, for good or evil, orders of magnitude beyond what they could do in a pre-industrial society.

Second, the H-bomb was only invented in 1952, so it's only been around a little over 70 years. Saying that nothing bad has happened yet as a result of the H-bomb, isn't saying much. Put another way, the H-Bomb is younger than the last two U.S. presidents.

I would argue that never since the advent of human society have we ever been capped by physical power - a crazy person with a sword, sure, but a crazy person with a posse? With followers, with a mob, with a movement, with an army?

I think the limits of how far a single person can project their power is physically is easily outstripped by how far they can project socially. (Tools do help with both those methods of course)

People also thought we could simply do a degrowth and then came covid..turns out we go fully tribal warfare if not bribed by burning the world as incense for the economic gods.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com