AIs gunning for our precious freelancers

[zompist]

the ability of computers to work far harder than humans represents a massive point in their favor.

The same is true of a light bulb, but I don't see you complaining that human fire-starters are outmoded.

If you're imagining someone listing pros and cons of humans and computers, the obvious questions are:

1. Who is making this list and why? You? ChatGPT? God?

2. What are the cons of computers? Do you even know?

[malloc]

1. Who is making this list and why? You? ChatGPT? God?

Imagine an alien horrified by the numerous crimes of humanity, both past and present, tallying the outrageous moral debt incurred by driving countless megafauna to extinction, causing global warming, establishing brutal dictatorships, selling each other into slavery, reducing women to chattel, exterminating entire ethnic groups, and so much more. Before the rise of computers, we could simply tell the alien that we are the only beings capable of creating and managing civilization so anyone who values science and modernity and so forth has no choice but to accept us warts and all. Now however an alternative to humans as the master of civilization is emerging and we must justify our honorable place in the world rather than treating it as an inevitable birthright.

2. What are the cons of computers? Do you even know?

The biggest con of computers is their reliance on highly brittle industrial infrastructure like microchip fabs. It would only take one sufficiently large typhoon through the heart of Taiwan to set the computer industry back decades. Humans by contrast can live and reproduce under many different climates. Another con is that computers have not yet mastered all human activities, just most of them.

[keenir]

yup, I can let my computer search for virii while I take a nap, snack, and talk to friends...and if my computer activates screensaver or sleep mode, it keeps working.

I'm not seeing a problem. or proof that thats proof of computer superiority.

Almost by definition, the ability to work constantly represents an advantage over having to take long breaks between work.

and that makes me think that you've never had to work.

Regardless of how broad you consider the gulf between human and computer intelligence, the ability of computers to work far harder than humans represents a massive point in their favor.

AI might one day be able to work for longer, but the ability to work harder on things, is for robots.

Meanwhile it becomes increasingly difficult to name human-exclusive cognitive abilities by the day...

thinking. innovation. novelty. brainstorming. contemplating. meditating. holding sober sensible conversations for minutes or longer.

you want that alphabetically, ask your AI.

[keenir]

1. Who is making this list and why? You? ChatGPT? God?

Imagine an alien horrified by the numerous crimes of humanity, both past and present, tallying the outrageous moral debt incurred

so, it has your/human morality, specifically a morality that sees terraforming and removal of dangerous animals, as bad things worthy of punishment or worse.

by driving countless megafauna to extinction, causing global warming, establishing brutal dictatorships, selling each other into slavery, reducing women to chattel, exterminating entire ethnic groups, and so much more. Before the rise of computers, we could simply tell the alien that we are the only beings capable of creating and managing civilization so anyone who values science and modernity and so forth has no choice but to accept us warts and all.

you imagine this alien as powerful enough to sit in judgement of humankind...why would it accept your claim that it must accept humans? heck, this alien is essentially the Abrahamic G-D in might...which begs the question of why G-D Himself has not wiped out humans and replaced us all with AI.

Now however an alternative to humans as the master of civilization is emerging and we must justify our honorable place in the world rather than treating it as an inevitable birthright.

wow, thats more an argument against SETI or METI than against AI. ('our honorable place in the world'?? by your logic, humankind has already built up so many points against us, that there is no recovery)

2. What are the cons of computers? Do you even know?

The biggest con of computers is their reliance on highly brittle industrial infrastructure like microchip fabs.

thats a vulnerability.

after all, you wouldn't consider this true: "the cons of humans, are wiping out the ground sloths, and not having throats that can breathe underwater while holding a spoken language conversation."

It would only take one sufficiently large typhoon through the heart of Taiwan to set the computer industry back decades.

or a hurricane through Western North Carolina...like Helene.

https://youtu.be/5nI593iMBA0?si=Q1gOszkgc6rSUUot

[rotting bones]

Sigh, what even is this?

Just to be clear, I don't mean to be seriously anti-intelligence in my previous posts. I can imagine an AI for which accounting is the most fun activity possible. Even for humans, accounting can be competitive and even fun in many ways.

[/nɒtɛndəduːd/]

as an opposite note, though, think about it this way: once AI is capable of creating art indistinguishable from human-made art, it's highly possible that human-made art will be valued more. just make a little symbol that can be put on an image that says 'this is made by a human' or something like that. you might think "how will we tell? won't AI just learn to recreate this symbol?" to which I say, think of the pattern that most currencies have on them, that makes it so that printers won't photocopy them.

now, instead of AI being an issue for artists, it actually is beneficial.

[Raphael]

Something that occurred to me yesterday: can any of today's AIs themselves reliably tell whether something was created by a human or an AI?

[bradrn]

Something that occurred to me yesterday: can any of today's AIs themselves reliably tell whether something was created by a human or an AI?

Not reliably, that I’m aware of. In fact, my understanding is that many of today’s models are trained via adversarial methods: they literally have another neural network which tries to distinguish the output of the model from that of a human, and training is complete when that adversarial neural network can no longer do so.

[malloc]

as an opposite note, though, think about it this way: once AI is capable of creating art indistinguishable from human-made art, it's highly possible that human-made art will be valued more. just make a little symbol that can be put on an image that says 'this is made by a human' or something like that. you might think "how will we tell? won't AI just learn to recreate this symbol?" to which I say, think of the pattern that most currencies have on them, that makes it so that printers won't photocopy them.

now, instead of AI being an issue for artists, it actually is beneficial.

Except that the AI generated "artwork" would cost less, making it the obvious choice for anyone not ideologically committed to supporting humans. Corporations would never bother to employ human artists, eliminating the largest and most lucrative gigs outright. Certainly some artists would survive in boutique contexts, but the field would still shrink dramatically.

you imagine this alien as powerful enough to sit in judgement of humankind...why would it accept your claim that it must accept humans? heck, this alien is essentially the Abrahamic G-D in might...which begs the question of why G-D Himself has not wiped out humans and replaced us all with AI.

The alien is hypothetical like Maxwell's demon or Schrödinger's cat, since moral judgements logically need a judge. The specifics of this judge hardly matter anymore than one worries about the breed of cat Schrödinger was hypothetically tormenting.

thats a vulnerability.

after all, you wouldn't consider this true: "the cons of humans, are wiping out the ground sloths, and not having throats that can breathe underwater while holding a spoken language conversation."

Surely a vulnerability is also a con. The problems of humanity are both moral and practical. Humans lack many abilities that come quite easily to other animals.

[keenir]

as an opposite note, though, think about it this way: once AI is capable of creating art indistinguishable from human-made art, it's highly possible that human-made art will be valued more. just make a little symbol that can be put on an image that says 'this is made by a human' or something like that. you might think "how will we tell? won't AI just learn to recreate this symbol?" to which I say, think of the pattern that most currencies have on them, that makes it so that printers won't photocopy them.

now, instead of AI being an issue for artists, it actually is beneficial.

Except that the AI generated "artwork" would cost less, making it the obvious choice for anyone not ideologically committed to supporting humans.

except you would be forced to pay for each version, even if it doesn't hold to your artistic vision...which means it would result in costing more, both in terms of your time and your money.

...and your blood pressure.

Corporations would never bother to employ human artists, eliminating the largest and most lucrative gigs outright.

why do you think corporations would be the more lucrative gigs?

you imagine this alien as powerful enough to sit in judgement of humankind...why would it accept your claim that it must accept humans? heck, this alien is essentially the Abrahamic G-D in might...which begs the question of why G-D Himself has not wiped out humans and replaced us all with AI.

The alien is hypothetical like Maxwell's demon or Schrödinger's cat, since moral judgements logically need a judge.

hmm...either i can deny that, or i can be your judge and declare you to be a yellow-bellied surrender monkey.

The specifics of this judge hardly matter anymore than one worries about the breed of cat Schrödinger was hypothetically tormenting.

Manx Tabby. everybody knows that.

thats a vulnerability.

after all, you wouldn't consider this true: "the cons of humans, are wiping out the ground sloths, and not having throats that can breathe underwater while holding a spoken language conversation."

Surely a vulnerability is also a con. The problems of humanity are both moral and practical. Humans lack many abilities that come quite easily to other animals.

in terms of things like lithovory, yes. in terms of things like speed and eyesight, humans do not lack them - humans are less specialized.

[malloc]

except you would be forced to pay for each version, even if it doesn't hold to your artistic vision...which means it would result in costing more, both in terms of your time and your money.

...and your blood pressure.

Not everyone has an artistic vision and plenty of people would hardly care if the AI generates something a bit different than what they expected. All things considered, the AI would still cost less than a human artist while producing results faster, which many people would consider sufficient.

why do you think corporations would be the more lucrative gigs?

Corporations have the money to pay you better than random individuals, if they choose anyway. They also provide more steady employment than relying on commissions from random people while providing something impressive on your résumé. Consider the difference between working full-time for Disney and drawing commissions on DeviantArt or something.

[Raphael]

Something that occurred to me yesterday: can any of today's AIs themselves reliably tell whether something was created by a human or an AI?

Not reliably, that I’m aware of. In fact, my understanding is that many of today’s models are trained via adversarial methods: they literally have another neural network which tries to distinguish the output of the model from that of a human, and training is complete when that adversarial neural network can no longer do so.

Ah, thank you!

[keenir]

except you would be forced to pay for each version, even if it doesn't hold to your artistic vision...which means it would result in costing more, both in terms of your time and your money.

...and your blood pressure.

Not everyone has an artistic vision and plenty of people would hardly care if the AI generates something a bit different than what they expected. All things considered, the AI would still cost less than a human artist while producing results faster, which many people would consider sufficient.

none of whom are here.

(theres also the matter of AI stealing images)

{{also weird you don't care about your blood pressure}}

why do you think corporations would be the more lucrative gigs?

Corporations have the money to pay you better than random individuals, if they choose anyway.

theres the rub, or the catch...not sure what the difference is.

[malloc]

An interesting article on the relationship between AI "art" and contemporary fascism that should give some AI boosting leftists here pause. Granted it often feels like this forum is the only place that hasn't noticed the connection between the tech industry and far right politics.

[Raphael]

Granted it often feels like this forum is the only place that hasn't noticed the connection between the tech industry and far right politics.

Sigh.

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?t=1598

[malloc]

Granted it often feels like this forum is the only place that hasn't noticed the connection between the tech industry and far right politics.

Sigh.

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?t=1598

Only two people in that thread acknowledge that Musk is a fascist while the others either deny anything problematic about his AI or wring their hands about calling him a Nazi.

Meanwhile we have Bill Gates predicting that AI will destroy the majority of jobs in the next decade. Regardless of whether you consider that likely, this announcement illustrates the intended path of the tech industry and how they feel about the rest of us. The great majority of humans have little place in the future they are trying to create.

And another interesting article about OpenAI allowing users to plagiarize the style of Studio Ghibli, which the writer considers particularly galling given how much Miyazaki Hayao has expressed his distaste for AI generated animation.

Finally another article I found today discusses the relationship between computing and the need to discipline industrial workers. It begins with this rather striking and damning point:

The blueprint for modern digital computing was codesigned by Charles Babbage, a vocal champion for the concerns of the emerging industrial capitalist class who condemned organized workers and viewed democracy and capitalism as incompatible.

[keenir]

The blueprint for modern digital computing was codesigned by Charles Babbage, a vocal champion for the concerns of the emerging industrial capitalist class who condemned organized workers and viewed democracy and capitalism as incompatible.

so...computers are evil because Babbage was a meanie and held evil thoughts? isn't that outweighed by by the father of modern computers, Mr (dr?) Turing himself & his views?

An interesting article on the relationship between AI "art" and contemporary fascism that should give some AI boosting leftists here pause. Granted it often feels like this forum is the only place that hasn't noticed the connection between the tech industry and far right politics.

rich people can fund both sides. this is not anything new -- Jefferson would have been familiar with the behavior.

also, we've noticed connections, yes; we just don't lie down in traffic waiting for the T-800s to march over us.

[Raphael]

Finally another article I found today discusses the relationship between computing and the need to discipline industrial workers. It begins with this rather striking and damning point:

The blueprint for modern digital computing was codesigned by Charles Babbage, a vocal champion for the concerns of the emerging industrial capitalist class who condemned organized workers and viewed democracy and capitalism as incompatible.

Completely ridiculous. Everything in human life had some horrible people among the people involved in its development. The point is neither striking nor damning.

[Travis B.]

malloc, just because something has had people who have had objectionable views associated with it does not make it bad in and of itself. Computing is not bad just because Charles Babbage was pro-capitalist by any means.

[Travis B.]

Hell, the fact that many American 'founding fathers' were slaveowners does not make liberal democracy bad either, a conclusion one would come to if one followed your logic.