Llamamoe

Does anyone, ever, have any faith in the integrity or competence of executives, these days? Because it seems to me that most people would outright prefer them to burn but are powerless against the increasing abuses and betrayals of employees.

People love to bring this up, but while yes, all cells have some form of memory mechanism or another, with quite the number of nerves outside the brain, we are still a cognitively top-eown organism and quite unlike simpler organisms where the line is blurry.

In machine learning terms, we've basically got a layer or two of neurons responsible for physical memory stored outside the brain, sure. But it's out of dozens if not hundreds total.

You can configure rofimoji to work really well and off a keyboard shortcut into any application.

Those countries tend to have much less cultural awareness/acceptance and much tougher lives where other priorities take precedence.

The death toll of especially the early variants was huge, and it created the largest spike in disability(vis fatigue etc) and cardiovascular disease in recent history.

It WSS definitely not nothing.

I'm glad that this was the case for you, but presenting it as an universal truth is extremely cruel and harmful to people for whom it is not, and you should be really careful with phrasing. Statements like these is why people's symptoms are not being taken seriously.

It's definitely a stupid move. Even if you are going to do it, it should be completely independently of AA to distribute the risk.

> It's a great place to live, genuinely. But calling this "Poland's economy" is like calling a McDonald's franchise "your restaurant"

Economically? Yes, if you ignore the fact that we're one of the most overworked populations in the first world and pretty much all low-level jobs(restaurant/call office/etc) have abysmally poor working conditions.

Culturally? Developed cities in Western/Northern Poland and Warsaw, sure. But everywhere else is shades of shitty and if you're LGBT+ a third of the country has legislation against your very existence.

Poland has made a lot of progress but calling it a great place to live is - while not altogether untrue - a statement of privilege more than universal reality.

You say the same about neo-nazis?

And none of it has ever been to protect children. Almost everything nasty happening to children is facilitated by parental neglect if not directly by abuse, but no government body has ever cared to even try cracking down on it.

It's always the privacy and freedom that have got to go so we can protect children from the terrifying internet boogiemen that probably won't even get slowed down by the new laws while 99.9% of child abuse continues as it always had.

I think it has also been pretty clear from the beginning of his current term that the primary principle of this administration is to pass whatever has been paid for. E.g. the literally hundreds of executive orders that he started signing en masse the moment he got elected, none of which were written in his style or pen or even possible to write in such volume for a single person in a single day.

> I asked myself, "well what specific laws would I write to combat addictive design?".

Only allowing algorithmic feeds/recommendations on dedicated subpages to which the user has to navigate, and which are not allowed to integrate viewing the content would be an excellent start IMO.

I don't think there's any way for that to happen, and IF we could create a solid legislative framework, AI could definitely (at some point in the future) contribute more good than bad to society.

Obviously it should not apply to anything using machine learning based algorithms in any way, just content made using generative AI, with exceptions for minor applications and/or a separate label for smaller edits.

> That could do more harm than good.

The downside to having labels on AI-written political comments, stellar reviews of bad products, speeches by a politician, or supposed photos of wonderful holiday destinations in ads targeted at old people are what, exactly?

Are you really arguing that putting a label on AI generated content could do more harm than just leaving it (approximately) indistinguishable from the real thing might somehow be worse?

I'm not arguing that we need to label anything that used gen AI in any capacity, but past the point of e.g. minor edits, yeah, it should be labeled.

Ideally, trying to pass anything AI-generated as human-made content would be illegal, not just news, but it's a good start.

AI-written articles tend to be far more regurgitative, lower in value, and easier to ghostwrite with intent to manipulate the narrative.

Economic value or not, AI-generated content should be labeled, and trying to pass it as human-written should be illegal, regardless of how used to AI content people do or don't become.

This is by far the biggest failing of capitalism. The entire world contributes to economical growth, but almost all of this value is captured by a tiny group of the rich elite.

> Big Tech cannot ruin your life if you simply don't participate in the capitalistic market. I mean sure, it's difficult to live completely off-grid, but in modern world, it's a long way before you starve to death.

You still have to pay taxes, and doing this means giving up on a lot of your existing human connection, joining a community in no small part comprised of crackpots, tanking your quality of life, and losing your influence over the future of broader society.

Furthermore, it's a personal solution to a systemic problem. It'll work for a few people, but it's not a fix.

People boycott AI art in indie games, music, etc. but it's still finding massive use everywhere across most industries, and by and large companies are getting away with it.

> would never command as much money as the original unless someone deliberately mixed them up so that nobody would even know which was which.

That is based on current sensibilities which are capable of change. Give it 20 years of PR campaigns and who knows where we end up.

Ridiculously high wages for jobs whose explicit purpose is to make human workers(including those partaking in those jobs) obsolete. THE reason why they pay so high is because their end-goal is not having to pay anyone anymore ever again. (or at least, only pay a comparatively tiny amount of people for producing the data)

I still don't think it precludes him from having this opinion. Could he be doing more? Sure, but having found success in this system doesn't make his criticisms of it invalid.

> Such situations usually correct themselves violently.

Historically, they did because everyone's capacity for violence was equal.

What about now that the best the average person can do is a firearm against coordinated, organized military with armoured vehicles, advanced weaponry, drones, and sooner than later, full access to mass surveillance?

Also, how will a revolution happen once somebody trains a ML model end-to-end to identify desire for revolution from your search and chat history and communication with like-minded others?

Assuming the intent isn't prevented altogether through algorithmic feeds showing only content that makes it seem less attractive.

> However, these threats are outweighed by the benefits that AI can eventually bring. Medical advances, power generation, manufacturing capability. Our systems for running society have a lot of problems, economically, politically, epistemologically. These can also be improved with AI assistance.

Benefits come to those who have the means to access it, and wealth is a measure of the ability to direct and influence human effort and society.

How exactly do you propose that AI will serve the wellbeing of the worker/middle classes after they've been made obsolete by it?

Goodwill of the corporations working on them? Of their shareholders, well-known to always put welfare first and profit second? Government action increasingly directed by their lobbying?

> What we need is to embrace AI and find a way to make sure that the transition and benefits of AI are distributed instead of concentrated.

Sure. How? We've not done it with any other technological advances so far, and I don't see how shifting the power balance further away from the worker/middle class will help matters.

There's a reason why the era of techno-optimism has already faded as quickly as it's begun.

If you raise the bar for being allowed to speak about a very real concern that high, nobody will be left to spread and debate the idea in the first place.

I'd just like to add three things to the conversation:

1) Instead of LLMs, imagine large models trained end-to-end on ALL online content and the impact it has on public opinion and discourse. What about when everything is an algorithmic feed controlled by such a model under the control of the elite? You might be resistant(but probably aren't), but in aggregate this will be effective mind control over society.

2) Money directs human effort. Every quantum of bargaining power the worker/middle class lose due to being less needed is the reduction in our ability to have a say in who society should serve and how.

3) Don't forget regulatory capture is a thing. Not just a thing but happening as we speak. Are you still optimistic?

4) Tech is already addicting and ads are already everywhere even without technology that has a theory of mind.

5) Do not forget that humans are social creatures, power over others is not just an accidental byproduct of wealth. Once you're unnecessary for labor, what's left? Fulfilling sexual/emotional/social whims of the wealthy elite? Hunger games? Being a pet in a billionaire's human zoo city so he can brag about his contributions to humanity?

Inevitably? Maybe not, but the situation isn't gonna get better by saying "oh I'm sure the tech industry will do a 180 and stop making everything worse"

> seems to have no issue with Google hosting their email.

There's this meme where person A says "we should improve society somewhat", and B replies "yet you participate in society! curious". Very similar argument.

You enjoy individual benefits and completely disregard the fact that electronics addiction and loneliness get worse year by year. You've been able to Google anything and chat with anyone back in 2010, all we've achieved since is making the average person spend 4-5h mindlessly doomscrolling on their phone and watching YouTube instead of having meaningful social interaction.

Also, we've got an entire generation growing up on ads, algorithmic brainrot, and now ai slop.

You're also forgetting algorithmic price fixing, algorithmic pricing, the billions in R&D into making internet platforms and services more addicting and effective at siphoning out your money, etc.

> It is the input that continuously reconstitutes itself around whatever remains scarce, valuable and socially demanded as productivity rises.

Even if, AI is going to tank the bargaining power of the working class even harder than it already is.

It's already the reality for many that they're working for minimum wage, in toxic environments, with no benefits, and more overtime than legal in places that regulate it solely because they have very little better choice.

Furthermore, this power inequality directly translates to influence over economic output of our civilization - by the time value of human menial or cognitive labor goes low enough to delete jobs, all that will be left will be various equivalents of being a sugar baby for the rich - fulfilling their emotional, sexual, and social needs. Not even art, because that's among the things gen AI is displacing the most effectively.

> Middle class status anxiety manifesting as a rhetoric about neofeudalism.

The middle class is a tiny, tiny fraction of the population nowadays. Even among those working high-earning jobs like tech/healthcare/finance, most are just upper worker class.

Personal solutions to systemic problems are not solutions. Yours is great advice for the few people able to take it to heart, find the motivation, and succeed, but you cannot solve societal problems at any kind of scale this way.