harimau777

I'm not sure that demonstrates anything. That just demonstrates that people work different jobs than they did back then; it doesn't tell us anything about wealth distribution.

I don't think it is likely that they could get enough data without stealing. It would be incredibly costly to have to pay artists to church out art just to train an AI.

Why do you believe that they aren't reasoning? What would convince you that they are?

I don't think it is black and white. There's a difference between the reasonable need for justice to move slowly and moving so slowly that it effectively never materializes for those being hurt. Relief is not useful if you are long dead before it arrives.

Is it possible that you might be in a bit of a bubble? At least in the community that I live in there is already virtually no public trust in our "justice" system.

I think that there is something to what you are saying, but I don't think it is that simple. A new technology could change things by making previous abuses much more common. To give an extreme example, mass murder has always been possible; however, we restrict nuclear weapons because they make it so much more easy and therefore so much more ripe for abuse.

Similarly, there is a big difference between the police keeping a physical record book of mugshots, the police employing experts to maintain a database, and AI allowing nearly anyone to perform in depth surveilance.

I can't speak to the person who downvoted you, but one possibility is that they see that political violence is already common; the only thing that has changed recently is that it is becoming more evenly distributed. Queer people, protesters, ethnic and religious minorities, the poor, etc. have long been subject to various forms of harm by those in power. All that has changed is that those in power are now also experiencing harm.

I think it ceased to be a good when it switched from empowering users to force feeding users. For example, Facebook's early "people you may know" algorithm was spectacular. It allowed me to reconnect with a long lost childhood friend and made it easy to find members of my community. However, that changed when it switched from being something that I could choose to use to the algorithm force injecting stuff into my feed.

What's the alternative? The system is completely nonresponsive to the poor and oppressed. Right or wrong, it is only natural that people turn to violence when they have no other option.

It seems notable to me that the tech bros ignore the obvious solution:

If we assume that they are right: AI is inevitable and certain significant negatives cannot be avoided, then the obvious solution is for society to put together a social safety net for those who are effected. Altman could easily decide to campaign for and donate to a party which made serious strides towards establishing such a safety net.

The fact that they ignore the obvious solution suggests to me that they aren't quite being honest about their motives.

I don't think that's how it actually works in practice. In practice it is dramatically more likely that the rich and powerful get to decide who makes the tradeoffs. That is dangerous in normal times but especially considering the revealed nature and priorities of the tech bros and fascists currently in power.

That doesn't mean that the good and bad things are equitably distributed, that the good and bad things happen at the same time, or that the bad outweighs the good. All three issues are at play here: The benefits are likely to disproportionately help the rich and the pain is likely to disproportionately help the poor. New prosperity is likely to come too late for the people whose lives are being disrupted. It seems likely that the benefits of culture being consumed by AI slop outweighs the benefits (I'd like to be more detailed, but honeslty it isn't completely clear what the benefits are).

Can you expand on this? It is not clear what part of the post you regard as attacking a strawman.

Who gets to make that decision?

I think you are missing the point of the discussion. The idea behind "just retrain" rhetoric is effectively "new technology won't destroy people's quality of life because they can just retrain!". If quality of life isn't maintained, then there is no reason to retrain at all, people can just get a minimum wage job and live in poverty.

Is that true for healthcare careers that don't have abysmal quality of life? All of the nurses I've known are working 60 hour weeks, night shifts, etc.

Who's we? Personally, I've actively supported the traditional garment industry to the degree that it still exists.

Generally speaking they didn't. They either got lucky or their quality of life plummeted.

Yes and? You'll be shocked to know that pretty much none of us were alive in colonial America.

Have you checked how much high school teachers actually make? It's not much.

Because I've been looking for a new job for several months and all of them either require significant retraining or don't pay nearly enough to maintain even a similar quality of life. I don't just mean they don't pay enough for luxury. I mean they don't pay enough to live in my community without a roommate.

Not enough buffer to take 3-5 years to rebuild a career is not the same as no buffer at all. Personally I have about a year of buffer which is no where near enough to meaningfully retrain.

I don't think "just give up your existing community and move" is a viable option. That defeats the whole point since at that point the retraining isn't allowing you to maintain your quality of life.

I guess where I'm coming from is that I currently am trying to change careers. Everything I'm finding is either a 50% pay cut or is simply unwilling to consider anyone without 5-10 years of experience in that particular industry. Since I've already built a life here I can't really just move and a 50% pay cut isn't enough to live anywhere near a comfortable life; particularly since I have medical expenses that aren't covered by insurance.

Have any of these articles actually addressed HOW software developers are supposed to retrain for good jobs? Personally I have neither the money nor the years to go back to college to get a livable job.

What's your proposal for ending capitalism in our working lifetimes?

Yes, clearly that's what I mean as opposed to... you know... what I actually said.

It would be accountability.

Inability to get a better job.

I think the actual issue is that America often has infinite wait times because people can't afford the procedure.

Clearly he is an Irish Setter!