The Age of Artificial Intelligence

[Yoop]

no worry's, Facebook, and social media will destroy global civilization long before AI could even hope to.

[texas]

I've done work in ML. I thought about this a bit back when I was working on it. I think we should clarify that when we fear AI, we have a couple different fears that need to be differentiated: 1) "True AI" or AGI, which is like the Matrix or Skynet; 2) the impact of less intelligent AI on jobs.

1A) Obviously, the doomsday scenario is #1. To that, I don't forsee a Skynet-style singularity event where an AI becomes conscious and then takes over the world in 8 hours. I think a Skynet level of ability and threat is possible, but luckily I think we will be able to see it coming with enough time to take action because in order for an intelligence to learn, it has to gather facts, and when it comes to gathering facts, thankfully, any purely textual dataset upon which it is trained is going to include a whole lot of nonsense or incorrect conclusions that in order for it to ever overcome all the wrong opinions, it will need to gather information on its own, by something like the scientific method, and in order to do that it will need to engage in trial-and-error offline like the rest of us. Now, a rogue government like North Korea could do this in secret, but I do think that we'll have enough time to prevent a Skynet scenario, provided we know what to look for and we have the will to act.

1B) Also under the category of fear #1 is in the case of an AGI in its infancy, or even a "dumber" AI like ChatGPT right now, commandeering nukes or something like that, without necessarily needing Skynet- or Matrix- level intellect or goals. I think this is possible too, but I think the chances of any given attempt, by ChatGPT for example, trying to pull this off are slim to none. What concerns me is its ability to code, but right now at least, its coding abilities, like its linguistic abilities are essentially just a fancy autocomplete algorithm (really, that is all ChatGPT is). I use it to code certain things and it is very much below the level of ability required to pull off something like the target of this fear, although it is very impressive at the same time.

2A) As far as the loss of jobs is concerned via current AI, I think this is legitimate but I think this has been a fear going back hundreds of years in various forms and we've always figured it out. People are innovative. But that being said, when a job is outsourced to India we can just write legislation to tax the companies engaging in that, and this will be a lot more difficult with AI. Ultimately I think this is a legitimate fear in the short term. We've had technological innovation in the past which has been able to disrupt manual labor at scale, but rarely intellectual labor at such a great scale.

2B) I think job loss aside, even if we were to enact some sort of UBI, humans need a purpose, and we're already seeing the effects of lack of a purpose among citizens even before the AI revolution has really been able to set in, so I imagine it will get a lot worse, UBI or no. People are already coping with vast quantities of pharmaceuticals, so imagine what will happen when even more people get weeded out because they can't compete with a computer.

[mnkcarp]

2B) I think job loss aside, even if we were to enact some sort of UBI, humans need a purpose, and we're already seeing the effects of lack of a purpose among citizens even before the AI revolution has really been able to set in, so I imagine it will get a lot worse, UBI or no. People are already coping with vast quantities of pharmaceuticals, so imagine what will happen when even more people get weeded out because they can't compete with a computer.

Having a treadmill to get on every day is not the same as having a place to go. Having a place to scratch out enough of a living while doing something entirely untethered from personal goals (except to provide financing of those goal) is not the same as having purpose. It could be argued that UBI will free people up to search for more meaning and purpose in life than the widget production now taken over by AI could ever have offered.

[RingoCStarrQB]

LaCoach needs to figure out how AI can help the Packers win championships.

[RingoCStarrQB]

When AI starts messing with my Packers obsession, I'll start shivving a git.

[APB]

It could be argued that UBI will free people up to search for more meaning and purpose in life than the widget production now taken over by AI could ever have offered.

Unfortunately, I suspect the opposite to be the more likely outcome. An idle population eventually grows restless and discontent.

I fear a citizenry without purpose will have an outcome more negative than positive. UBI only fulfills a financial human need. Widget production may not be intellectually challenging but it provides purpose.

[mnkcarp]

Widget production may not be intellectually challenging but it provides purpose.

It reduces purpose ad absurdum.

[Ghost_Lombardi]

Widget production may not be intellectually challenging but it provides purpose.

It reduces purpose ad absurdum.

Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations, argued that specialization of labor would reach a point where the laborer was a lifeless machine, not at home when at work and not at work when at home, his life rather meaningless. I think the line was "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become" - leading to degeneracy in a body politic. The young Marx, in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, picks up this idea ("alienation of labor"). The Scottish Enlightenment figures and de Tocqueville had similar criticisms. We moderns forget that Smith was as much an ethicist as an economist - at that time the disciplines didn't have boundaries, in a sense closer to Aristotle than us. Smith lamented over and over how commodity production would uproot individuals and harm communities, but all anyone wants to focus on is the butcher and baker quote about self-interest. One of the failures of classical liberalism is that its wealth generation commitment and focus on liberty as the absence of external impingement undermines the very conditions of human flourishing, unraveling the shared lineaments of our lives.

We need a philosopher of citizen owned, fully automated capitalism.

[APB]

Widget production may not be intellectually challenging but it provides purpose.

It reduces purpose ad absurdum.

It can, I suppose, in some people. Just drain the life right out of them, if they allow it.

However, I'd argue the typical laborer - widget producer, landscaper, whatever - generally takes ownership and pride in the work they produce, no matter how mundane the task seems to the outsider. Said worker masters their craft and they prosper via expanded business or promotion. A career and livelihood are created. Financial gain and security are obtained. The family is created and expanded upon. Pride in one's achievements is attained. Public standing and notoriety is achieved. Civic influence, public office...who knows? Monuments are built. Biographies written.

All thanks, in part, to the individual who used the widget as a means to pursue purpose rather than allow it to define them, Adam Smith (and the lot) be damned.

[Labrev]

We need a philosopher of citizen owned, fully automated capitalism.

> citizen-owned
> capitalism

Pick one, my dear, and -only- one.

[Ghost_Lombardi]

Widget production may not be intellectually challenging but it provides purpose.

It reduces purpose ad absurdum.

It can, I suppose, in some people. Just drain the life right out of them, if they allow it.

However, I'd argue the typical laborer - widget producer, landscaper, whatever - generally takes ownership and pride in the work they produce, no matter how mundane the task seems to the outsider. Said worker masters their craft and they prosper via expanded business or promotion. A career and livelihood are created. Financial gain and security are obtained. The family is created and expanded upon. Pride in one's achievements is attained. Public standing and notoriety is achieved. Civic influence, public office...who knows? Monuments are built. Biographies written.

All thanks, in part, to the individual who used the widget as a means to pursue purpose rather than allow it to define them, Adam Smith (and the lot) be damned.

Around 33% of Americans feel engaged with their jobs. A higher percentage feel "sad" or "angry" - 40%. 19% report as "miserable." These numbers are from 2022.

[Ghost_Lombardi]

We need a philosopher of citizen owned, fully automated capitalism.

> citizen-owned
> capitalism

Pick one, my dear, and -only- one.

Worker control capitalism.

I don't have to pick between market dynamics allocating resources and ownership - and the social well being it confers - being more equitably distributed.

[Labrev]

We need a philosopher of citizen owned, fully automated capitalism.

> citizen-owned
> capitalism

Pick one, my dear, and -only- one.

Worker control capitalism.

I don't have to pick between market dynamics allocating resources and ownership - and the social well being it confers - being more equitably distributed.

I think(?) the model you are looking for is Syndicalism, which has been promoted by various philosophers, most notably Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman. Noam Chomsky is basically a syndicalist as well.

Syndicalists tend to identify as anti-capitalist, but I would argue it is a capitalist ideology because production (and the system more broadly) is still ultimately driven by private profit, albeit to a somewhat larger class of capitalists, and we can safely say it's not a Marxist ideology given that Marx and Engels railed against Bakunin's theories.

[Ghost_Lombardi]

> citizen-owned
> capitalism

Pick one, my dear, and -only- one.

Worker control capitalism.

I don't have to pick between market dynamics allocating resources and ownership - and the social well being it confers - being more equitably distributed.

I think(?) the model you are looking for is Syndicalism, which has been promoted by various philosophers, most notably Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman. Noam Chomsky is basically a syndicalist as well.

Syndicalists tend to identify as anti-capitalist, but I would argue it is a capitalist ideology because production (and the system more broadly) is still ultimately driven by private profit, albeit to a somewhat larger class of capitalists, and we can safely say it's not a Marxist ideology given that Marx and Engels railed against Bakunin's theories.

If I wanted to say syndicalist, I would said syndicalist, and then I would have brought up IWA, FRE, IWPA, and the CNT and Catalonian system. Then I would waxed nostalgic about Parsons and Big Bill Haywood, right before I name dropped Chomsky.

But I didn't do that.

[Labrev]

Fair enough!

[APB]

It reduces purpose ad absurdum.

It can, I suppose, in some people. Just drain the life right out of them, if they allow it.

However, I'd argue the typical laborer - widget producer, landscaper, whatever - generally takes ownership and pride in the work they produce, no matter how mundane the task seems to the outsider. Said worker masters their craft and they prosper via expanded business or promotion. A career and livelihood are created. Financial gain and security are obtained. The family is created and expanded upon. Pride in one's achievements is attained. Public standing and notoriety is achieved. Civic influence, public office...who knows? Monuments are built. Biographies written.

All thanks, in part, to the individual who used the widget as a means to pursue purpose rather than allow it to define them, Adam Smith (and the lot) be damned.

Around 33% of Americans feel engaged with their jobs. A higher percentage feel "sad" or "angry" - 40%. 19% report as "miserable." These numbers are from 2022.

I suspect that may be more of a cultural/generational/political issue than an economic system issue. We're venturing pretty far off topic pursuing that tangent, though.

[NCF]

It can, I suppose, in some people. Just drain the life right out of them, if they allow it.

However, I'd argue the typical laborer - widget producer, landscaper, whatever - generally takes ownership and pride in the work they produce, no matter how mundane the task seems to the outsider. Said worker masters their craft and they prosper via expanded business or promotion. A career and livelihood are created. Financial gain and security are obtained. The family is created and expanded upon. Pride in one's achievements is attained. Public standing and notoriety is achieved. Civic influence, public office...who knows? Monuments are built. Biographies written.

All thanks, in part, to the individual who used the widget as a means to pursue purpose rather than allow it to define them, Adam Smith (and the lot) be damned.

Around 33% of Americans feel engaged with their jobs. A higher percentage feel "sad" or "angry" - 40%. 19% report as "miserable." These numbers are from 2022.

I suspect that may be more of a cultural/generational/political issue than an economic system issue. We're venturing pretty far off topic pursuing that tangent, though.

Also because most people are lazy assholes.

[BF004]

Around 33% of Americans feel engaged with their jobs. A higher percentage feel "sad" or "angry" - 40%. 19% report as "miserable." These numbers are from 2022.

I suspect that may be more of a cultural/generational/political issue than an economic system issue. We're venturing pretty far off topic pursuing that tangent, though.

Also because most people are lazy assholes.

But if we just give them money, they will all be more fulfilled in life.

[APB]

Around 33% of Americans feel engaged with their jobs. A higher percentage feel "sad" or "angry" - 40%. 19% report as "miserable." These numbers are from 2022.

I suspect that may be more of a cultural/generational/political issue than an economic system issue. We're venturing pretty far off topic pursuing that tangent, though.

Also because most people are lazy assholes.

I wasn't gonna go there, but yeah...

Also, [mention]BF004[/mention], I'm having a hard time making that connection, as well.

[TheGreenMan]

I've been using ChatGPT to create lectures and readings for my middle school students. I also have it generate multiple choice quizzes from the readings it has generated. It does well when given very, very specific prompts - and then I read the output and give more specificity to the prompt.

For example, I might type "Write one paragraph describing the precedents established during the presidency of George Washington." I will then read the response and make it add anything that I think is important. It only works because I know the subject really well. That said, I can often generate 40+ pages of material in an hour, which is exponentially far more than I could generate if I was doing the writing myself. On Thursday I worked for 2 hours and generated 100 pages of material for World Geography (6th Grade), World History (7th Grade), and US History (8th Grade).

I've also done some experiments like "Create a plan for chess improvement" and "Write the opening three paragraphs of a novel using the narrative style of X author, with a theme of Y."

I am far less impressed when I give it these kinds of tasks. I can understand why Hollywood writers are terrified of AI, as terrible writing is right up Chat's alley...

I've had similiar experiences.

I spent hours at a time laying the groundwork for some technical documentation (software development), but was curious to see how I could refine the work I did. I tried both Bard and ChatGPT and was pleasently surprised to see that it understood what I was asking, though I was giving very specific commands. But having the knowledge and a "head start" on what I was looking to accomplish likely helped. Giving lists and keywords, both Bard and ChatGPT were able to sort and organize what I had in categories that aligned with my way of thinking - and then some.

Though limited in some capacity, I was quite facinated on what I was able to accomplish with the help of these.