In that reading „AI“ is a machine for the creation of epistemic injustice and the replacement of truth with what a tech elite wants it to be in order to control the population. This is a Fascist project that not so subtly aligns with Fascism’s totalitarian will to power and control as well as its reliance in replacing reasoning and debate with belief in power and the leader.
↫ Jürgen Geute
The purpose of a system is what it does, and what “AI” does is stunt users’ own abilities and development and concentrate power and wealth even further in the hands of a very small privileged few – a privileged few who consistently espouse fascist ideology and promote and implement fascist ideas. Jürgen Geute lays it out in much more detail backed by solid references and concrete examples, but the conclusion is clear.
And uncomfortable to many, as such conclusions always are.
It’s technology.
It will be used by whoever signs up for it, be it MAGA, a lazy artist, or CCP propagandists.
That’s government, not AI. Tech is the toolbox and “AI” is just their latest toy.
jbauer,
Fascists can use AI to advance their evil ends, but the same is true of just about anything. Even if we were to ban it’s use by the general population, it wouldn’t stop the fascists. In other words, it would end up exclusively in the hands of those with the worst intentions. So IMHO we should acknowledge that AI is just a tool that can be used by good and bad actors alike.
I, too, wish that the seemingly obvious notion of a tool as a morally neutral implement was universal, but we are far, far away from that reality. Indeed, the linked article argues passionately against the very idea. In this case the author is advancing an extreme viewpoint, but more generally people seem able to accept this maxim at best only part of the time. As soon as the subject comes around to something they hate, the tool assumes a sinister cast. Consider:
Many of the *exact same people* that jeered about gun control, claiming directly that “guns are just tools” start cheering when the subject turns to something like encryption, which can be used to hide kiddie porn or protect “traitors” like Snowden.
Many of the *exact same people* cheering intrusive cryptocurrency regulations like KYC because “fuck those crypto bros” suddenly began to wail when the subject turns to age verification on social media or at the operating system level.
Not even the same “kinds” of people – the same people. I’ve seen it.
The intellectually dishonest people doing this will hang their hat on some technicality, some small difference of no significance. Those more honest will use their own moral beliefs to justify the position “in this case” for reasons. In true Benjamin Sisko form, its OK this time because they’re the good guys doing good things and helping everybody. Perhaps most amazingly, some people become so entranced by the particulars that they don’t even perceive the dissonance in their concurrently held positions, and will not admit it even when pressed.
They all have one thing in common, however. Point all of this this out and they hate on you worse than their ideological opposites. Ask me how I know.
I don’t have the answer to any of this. But FWIW, I agree with you. Tools are tools, built to serve good, evil and everything in between. The best course is to let them be, and focus on people. This at least offers a level playing field to those that choose to do good, or at least to not do evil.
Baylan Tano,
Yes I acknowledge that many other tools are in the same boat. Not inherently good or bad, but they can be wielded in both socially beneficial and harmful ways.
Yes, I see that too. it seems to be human nature to pass ideological judgements inconsistently using arbitrary technicalities for justification. One crime can have vastly different reactions just depending on the political leanings of who did it. Hell even actions as serious as trying to overthrow democratic elections has become politically acceptable :-/
I agree. And IMHO this will become even more prevalent as extremism becomes more normalized, which unfortunately seems to be the case.
I make an effort to be a centrist, which is to say that I try rejecting extremism on either side of the political spectrum. I hate that society has boiled everything down into a single dimension in terms of “right vs left”. The real world is not that simple or superficial, but everything is being framed this way.
We can’t just ask someone what they think about topic X, they’ve been socially conditioned to internalize every topic onto a left-right spectrum to formulate their identities around that. In truth it bugs me but left vs right has become so ingrained into our culture that I’m kind of forced to accept this is the way peoples brains work and there’s not much point in arguing over the nuance of things in isolation of left-vs-right ideology.
Indeed. The problem I see is that malicious characters are able to exploit people’s social conditioning to get them to act and vote in favor of harmful social outcomes for society. The natural conclusion of our discussion would be to invoke Godwin’s law, haha.
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of reducing the dialog surrounding effects of LLM development and advanced robotics on human societies into a “for” and “against” war is that there are actually things we could be doing, as a species, as nations and independently, to mitigate the risks. But to reach them we must proceed on the basis of treating certain potential outcomes as inevitable. I would argue this should be easy based only on things we have already seen and that are well documented.
One “side” is completely unwilling to do this. The anti-AI crowd are all focused on either stopping LLM advancement or containing and regulating the results. Both are fools errands that will come to nothing. And very few people I have seen have the specific dangers represented by the combination of LLM intelligence, advanced robotics and the granting of agency on their radar.
The other “side” might be more than willing to listen until they heard some of the mitigations. Many of them genuinely believe in the tech they’re working on, and with good reason. I’ve imagined a few pro-human measures that would more or less ensure that human beings had a fighting chance in the future some people are building for us. I can guarantee that pretty much all of them would be opposed by every AI/robotics company, police and military organizations, governments and political activists of every stripe – all on wildly different grounds. 10 heads would be the fashion. How could you even suggest that?
I think there is justice in your reply above, and I also am at a loss for what to do. So I made an account on OS News lol. Human history has been a messy, messy affair. People have different mechanisms for denying this to themselves, but the reality is inescapable to anyone that has studied our story. I think many of the things about the way people think and act that I see characterized by others as modern problems are actually as old as time. The Tao Te Ching records many of them, and that’s over 2000 years old. Despite all of the awfulness we’re still here, our same ugly selves. So maybe there is hope after all.
Thom Holwerda,
Every time we automate, we displace those who were skilled at working without automation. I sympathize with those impacted, one day it will be me. However betting against automation is almost always a loosing bet. The Luddites didn’t loose because they couldn’t make a moral case for themselves, they lost because the human labor was not economically competitive. As AI becomes better optimized over time, and it will, it’s just going to keep getting harder for humans to compete.
The modern day Luddites do make valid points, like job prospects for average humans or the insanely concentrated transfer of wealth that only becomes worse with AI. Customer service often becomes worse, whether it’s trying to get past automated agents on the phone, or stores replacing employees with automation…the experience can be downright dystopian…but this is the future whether I like it or not because companies don’t want to pay employee wages and AI enables them not to.
TLDR, I don’t make the case this is what’s best for average people, but I don’t see a way to stop it. AI’s economic advantage for corporations is overwhelming. Survival of the fittest will push out CEOs that resist AI and replace them with CEOs that embrace it.
The march of history has never been about what is best for average people and neither will the advancement of LLMs or robotics. I think you are 100% correct that there is no realistic way of stuffing any of it back in the box. If people want to feel better about themselves by abstaining, that is their business. But that is all such resolve can hope to accomplish. Inevitable is the word at this stage.
Any glimmer of hope one may have should be shattered by looking at the opposition. It is primarily composed of:
1. Academics
2. Hardcore Marxists
3. Effective altruists
There is some crossover of academics with the other two groups, but the Marxists and the altruists don’t get along at all. They won’t cooperate in any enduring or meaningful way. All three groups represent tiny slices of the world population, or any given population. All three groups suffer from a tragic and generally pervasive inability to communicate with normies – to meet them where they are and convince them of some small idea.
The linked article is an excellent example. If you don’t accept the Marxist interpretation of history and human relationships, none of the arguments offered will be convincing. There is nothing for you – it is pure fan service. If not agreeing with Marx makes someone a bad human being in the opinion of some other human being, so be it. The fact remains that the world is full of these baddies. They outnumber every extreme faction of opinion, and dismissing them is a losing proposition every time.
Additionally, few of the “practical” ideas being advanced by any of these groups are good ones. Guardrails are worthless against any real danger you’d care to mention, as anyone with a CS background should know. Pausing development will only stop the people that listen to the law, or that can be constrained. Not to mention the disadvantage that a locality would face by being the only abstainers. Development will continue.
As the impotence of the opposition becomes more apparent and undeniable, I would expect to see more violent outbursts like the gunfire and Molotov cocktail incidents at Altman’s house. Pointless violence is the swan song of the extremist, especially the frustrated extremist.
What is actually important, and could make some important difference in the future we all share, is that people are able to have thoughtful and candid discussions about this subject that affects us all. But that, too, is nearing impossibility. It is already becoming politicized, indeed the author of the linked article makes the case that the “artifact” is imbued with politicalness in its essence, and that this cannot be removed. Whether or not this is true, the discussion is rapidly being sucked in to the ongoing cultural wars already raging worldwide. The mass of people will fall into line on their respective sides without ever having heard a word.
There’s also the money. Hordes of people lining up to be winners and losers under the new calculus. Each with a stake that obliterates any possibility of compromise, fairness or even mere objectivity when discussing the subject. These people want to hear what they want to hear, and that’s that. There is no talking to them in any meaningful or impactful way. This won’t stop them from posing as open minded, curious people that have solemnly weighed all considerations. derp
So there goes any hope at a rational dialog about mitigating very real dangers and ensuring that human beings continue not only to exist, but to flourish. I’m certain you’ve noticed how difficult the subject already is to discuss, even on a niche, tech-focused blog like this one. So here we all are. Buckle up, and smoke if you’ve got em.
Please don’t equate Fascism with Totalitarian rule. It gives communism a pass it has never deserved.
Totalitarian regimes love dumb and uneducated people