Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6879346626 | Hacker News Reader

Honestly a pile of horse radish.

I won't get into how "fear of AI" is basically baloney and a manifestation of something else.

Let's just talk about "Stop AI companies". Let's take it literally and assume you were able to stop AI companies, what then? You think the government will stop developing AI? Heck if anything, all the core researchers will be instituted under government black projects.

Or let's take it to mean stop addiction to social media. Every single person makes choices in their lives, maybe it's time to actually start responsibility? Social media ban? It's crazy how people only seem to think about "living", every human has another jolly old state, called being dead as a rock, maybe it's time to let that do it's thing instead of forcing one onto everyone.

View on HN

This essay has nothing to say about LLMs (or "AI technology" as it calls it for simplicity), so yes "fear of AI" is ruled out.

But its core assertion is that AI companies intend to lock down control of LLMs through market forces, legislation, and cronyism, to ensure humans can only use them through the AI company walled garden. They want to control the tech, not permit the people to use it freely.

The goal is to stop the walled garden from forming, not to stop LLMs. Yes governments and good humans and bad humans will all use LLMs and cause harm, but LLMs are out and can't be undone. That's another topic, people argue endlessly over that topic already. im not weighing in there with this essay.

This essay says "hey, these companies are literally refining a product that is rental replacement versions of your job, and greedy ass business owners are definitely going to pay rent instead of pay you."

that should be terrifying to ALL of us. Its just software engineers being hit first, but that is because software is easily verifiable (verifiability being a significant requirement for today's LLMs to succeed).

regarding addiction, the government steps in to create laws around addictive substances, but it takes a LONG time for that to happen. ever heard of "gas station drugs"? the government cant keep up. social media companies have fucked us all over by deliberately refining their products for addiction (they call it engagement), and they're just now being tried for some of the harm. 10 years later.

AI is coming so fucking fast that our already weak and barely competent policy makers have no hope of keeping up. AI slop applies to policy too.

There should be fucking alarm bells ringing everywhere. regulatory capture and cronyism at AI speed is a new fucking threat to humanity, and were all just like ok with it? were arguing about tractors and how people have the right to make their own choices?

if my essay was too soft that is my fault. im a new writer and i failed to communicate my thesis well.

but the message i meant to portray is that AI wont kill people, but fucking AI companies will destroy humanity so they can get paid, and they have a unique and new tool that we as a species barely understand, and cannot defend against, and theyre charging the giant fucking deathstar up right the fuck now and pointing it directly at each and every one of us, and no one seems to give a shit.

A lot of good points here, if I had to say more, I'd have to use abundant speculation which doesn't fit well the HN storyboard. However, one of the more definite conclusions I've reached is about the need for open AI with open weights and open development - it doesn't solve every problem but I just can't see any way out without it, it's a good starting point too.

> and they have a unique and new tool that we as a species barely understand, and cannot defend against,

There's a causal link here, we cannot defend against something we don't understand, in this case more understanding and more open AI translate directly to better defenses.

> and no one seems to give a shit.

This is our problem and solving it involves a lot of politics, which, at this time, is an area where the good guys are in a seriously disadvantaged position, certainly a harsh test for those who engage in it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com