AIs gunning for our precious freelancers

[malloc]

i'd be happy to help you create exotic countries; i won't even ask for a % of their taxes.
(seriously, i'll help if you like)

was that that obstacle, or did i misunderstand your statement?

I mean that the modern world is extensively researched and documented such that one cannot imagine exotic locales or astonishing discoveries anymore. People once wrote about dinosaurs surviving in the jungles of Brazil or the the hollow interior of the Earth after all. Today that's simply inconceivable even as fiction. Coming up with new ways to surprise readers and characters alike is quite a challenge.

[Raphael]

Ed Zitron is in great form today. Read the whole thing; summarizing it or quoting from it wouldn't do it justice:

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of- ... ess-idiot/

[Raphael]

i'd be happy to help you create exotic countries; i won't even ask for a % of their taxes.
(seriously, i'll help if you like)

was that that obstacle, or did i misunderstand your statement?

I mean that the modern world is extensively researched and documented such that one cannot imagine exotic locales or astonishing discoveries anymore. People once wrote about dinosaurs surviving in the jungles of Brazil or the the hollow interior of the Earth after all. Today that's simply inconceivable even as fiction. Coming up with new ways to surprise readers and characters alike is quite a challenge.

I don't do this often, but I agree with you on this.

[Ketsuban]

People once wrote about dinosaurs surviving in the jungles of Brazil or the the hollow interior of the Earth after all. Today that's simply inconceivable even as fiction.

Being disproven in the real world doesn't mean you can't still write a story about the hollow interior of the Earth and populate it with whatever you want, or about a relict population of dinosaurs in the jungles of Brazil. You don't necessarily need to surprise readers, just convince them to suspend disbelief.

[Raphael]

People once wrote about dinosaurs surviving in the jungles of Brazil or the the hollow interior of the Earth after all. Today that's simply inconceivable even as fiction.

Being disproven in the real world doesn't mean you can't still write a story about the hollow interior of the Earth and populate it with whatever you want, or about a relict population of dinosaurs in the jungles of Brazil. You don't necessarily need to surprise readers, just convince them to suspend disbelief.

Oh, I'd say in this case, the problem with malloc's post is not that he's wrong, it's more that he's restating things that other people in this thread have already said a few weeks ago: https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php? ... start=1340

[keenir]

i'd be happy to help you create exotic countries; i won't even ask for a % of their taxes.
(seriously, i'll help if you like)

was that that obstacle, or did i misunderstand your statement?

I mean that the modern world is extensively researched and documented such that one cannot imagine exotic locales or astonishing discoveries anymore. People once wrote about dinosaurs surviving in the jungles of Brazil or the the hollow interior of the Earth after all. Today that's simply inconceivable even as fiction. Coming up with new ways to surprise readers and characters alike is quite a challenge.

I think the problem is you're equating "unknown places" with "exotic places".

for me, Yakutia, Russia is as exotic as Seattle, Washington is as exotic as Alice Springs, Australia.

as a further example to disprove your claim on both parts (unknown & exotic), I'll describe three places that I'd wager you've never heard of or knew anything about:

a. the only country ever to successfully outlaw duels.

b. a nation with a Gross National Happiness, whose prince killed his family.

c. seaside pyramids made of basalt.

and i'll reiterate: do you want help making exotic countries?

[zompist]

Ed Zitron is in great form today. Read the whole thing; summarizing it or quoting from it wouldn't do it justice:

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of- ... ess-idiot/

That was good. Zitron could use an editor, but I think he's right on in his analysis of American business.

The irony is that if we get rid of capitalism, it'll be because we're experiencing such a shitty version of it. The "business idiots" Zitron talks about weren't always there-- businesses used to be run by people who knew and cared about their industry. Now we have interchangeable MBAs who only know "business" and are rewarded whether they succeed or fail.

[rotting bones]

The irony is that if we get rid of capitalism, it'll be because we're experiencing such a shitty version of it. The "business idiots" Zitron talks about weren't always there-- businesses used to be run by people who knew and cared about their industry. Now we have interchangeable MBAs who only know "business" and are rewarded whether they succeed or fail.

... They cracked down on dissent, broke strikes, stole millions, ran sweatshops, and moved jobs wherever possible to save a buck. They used any distraction they could think of to consolidate power: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk-L4eOLl98

The complaint I commonly hear from old company men about new company men is that they are "too woke". They care about things like pronouns, the environment and (ugh) justice. In the old days, people entered companies to humbly learn how to make it successful like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC2eSujzrUY

[rotting bones]

Ed Zitron is in great form today. Read the whole thing; summarizing it or quoting from it wouldn't do it justice:

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of- ... ess-idiot/

I hear a lot of people say stuff like this:

None of these tasks are things that require you to use AI. You can read your messages on Outlook and Teams without having them summarized — and I’d argue that a well-written email is one that doesn’t require a summary. Podcasts are not there "to be chatted about" with an AI. Preparing for meetings isn't something that requires AI, nor is research, unless, of course, you don't really give a shit about the actual content of what you're reading or the message of what you're saying, just that you are "saying the right thing."

This message makes no sense to me. Of course it's mandatory for people who are trying to understand new ideas to play around with them as much as possible. What's the alternative, rote memorization like school children? Normally, you would discuss them with peers and teachers. If you don't trust them to be honest, knowledgeable or available, and talking to yourself isn't working out, the alternative is AI. The concern is not that the summarization and discussion is being done. The concerns are that the AI might not be accurate, using AI in for profit business consolidates power, energy usage needs to be capped at a level not too much higher than in 3D gaming, and so on.

PS. As for "I’d argue that a well-written email is one that doesn’t require a summary," what's the complaint there? That everyone should be a better writer? Surreal.

[rotting bones]

a flagging AI ecosystem that cost billions to construct, but doesn’t really seem to do anything

Some day, I'd like to visit the parallel universe that "leftist" commentators seem to live in.

Edit: For context, Google just used AI to find a bunch of new math proofs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGCmu7YKgPA

The broader point I’m trying to make is that neoliberalism is inherently selfish, believing that the free market should reign supreme, bereft of government intervention, regulation or interference

Possibly the major misunderstanding of 21st century "leftists" is that neoliberalism believes things. It's more like the social system based on finance capitalism is self-selecting for actions that concentrate money through donor networks.

PS. "Leftist" commentators have been predicting for a while, based on "theory" from the humanities, that AI is somehow impossible. After being decisively proven wrong, it seems like they have moved past shock. Some of them are in denial. Others are in anger, denouncing it as the Great Satan.

[malloc]

PS. "Leftist" commentators have been predicting for a while, based on "theory" from the humanities, that AI is somehow impossible.

Yeah, that sentiment has always perplexed me. It never made sense to me unless one assumes implicitly that human intelligence requires supernatural mechanisms that computers cannot use. If one accepts a purely materialist worldview as most leftists claim, then one must logically accept the possibility of artificial intelligence.

After being decisively proven wrong, it seems like they have moved past shock. Some of them are in denial. Others are in anger, denouncing it as the Great Satan.

More like defending the interests of humans against an interloper. I realize you greatly dislike humans but most people, whether left or right wing, disagree. Quite honestly I have come to share your misanthropy to some degree, although I really don't think far right billionaires should be the ones to design what comes after Homo sapiens.

[rotting bones]

Yeah, that sentiment has always perplexed me. It never made sense to me unless one assumes implicitly that human intelligence requires supernatural mechanisms that computers cannot use. If one accepts a purely materialist worldview as most leftists claim, then one must logically accept the possibility of artificial intelligence.

The rational kernel is that the social system is a constitutive factor in the emergence of intelligence as we understand it. This is true, and it plays a large role in the perceived alienness of AI. AI models that were not embedded in societies at some point can't possibly understand the meanings of the terms they use. That is, unless someone manages to reduce society to a manageable set of axioms. I'm not holding my breath.

More like defending the interests of humans against an interloper. I realize you greatly dislike humans but most people, whether left or right wing, disagree. Quite honestly I have come to share your misanthropy to some degree, although I really don't think far right billionaires should be the ones to design what comes after Homo sapiens.

1. The party line is that AI does nothing. I quoted the article, and that's what it says.

2. I'm not promoting misanthropy. I think genocidal ideology spreads when people think they understand reality. They should stop believing in their sanity and carefully examine the world, reformulating their theories from first principles where possible.

...

[keenir]

PS. "Leftist" commentators have been predicting for a while, based on "theory" from the humanities, that AI is somehow impossible.

Yeah, that sentiment has always perplexed me. It never made sense to me unless one assumes implicitly that human intelligence requires supernatural mechanisms that computers cannot use. If one accepts a purely materialist worldview as most leftists claim, then one must logically accept the possibility of artificial intelligence.

given the rarity of human-level intelligence in anything other than humans, and the absence of anything more intelligent than humans, then one must either accept that AI will not equal - much less surpass - human intelligence, or that AI will not occur...depending upon what minimum one posits AI must be capable of.

After being decisively proven wrong, it seems like they have moved past shock. Some of them are in denial. Others are in anger, denouncing it as the Great Satan.

More like defending the interests of humans against an interloper.

against an interloper? you refuse to defend the interests of humans against bad people, so why should we believe you would defend human interests against a nonhuman?

although I really don't think far right billionaires should be the ones to design what comes after Homo sapiens.

don't worry, they aren't.

[rotting bones]

Clarification:

AI models that were not embedded in societies at some point

I'm referring to the simulated environments I mentioned a long time ago.

[Ares Land]

Ed Zitron is in great form today. Read the whole thing; summarizing it or quoting from it wouldn't do it justice:

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of- ... ess-idiot/

I agree with some of his points -- CEOs and top executives are, if not idiots, at least disconnected from reality, and increasingly so.

On Satya Nadella; well Satya Nadella is selling a product (in that case, Copilot), so of course he's promoting it; going as far as to make absurd claims, sure, but that's marketing for you.
There is of course the 'quirky CEO doing quirky things' trend, which I think can be traced back to Steve Jobs.

None of these tasks are things that require you to use AI. You can read your messages on Outlook and Teams without having them summarized — and I’d argue that a well-written email is one that doesn’t require a summary. Podcasts are not there "to be chatted about" with an AI. Preparing for meetings isn't something that requires AI, nor is research, unless, of course, you don't really give a shit about the actual content of what you're reading or the message of what you're saying, just that you are "saying the right thing."

The thing is, using AI to summarize email actually makes sense -- the volume of email an executive receives is staggering.
I agree that well-written emails would help a lot; but email is, sadly, rarely well-written.

PS. "Leftist" commentators have been predicting for a while, based on "theory" from the humanities, that AI is somehow impossible. After being decisively proven wrong, it seems like they have moved past shock. Some of them are in denial. Others are in anger, denouncing it as the Great Satan.

Have they? I don't recall any such predictions. Unless this means AGI, which is still, um, unlikely.

1. The party line is that AI does nothing. I quoted the article, and that's what it says.

I'm not sure there is really a party line; more of a tendancy towards opposition, which itself ranges from skepticism to rejection.

Personally, while I don't think AI does nothing, I do feel there is something of a bubble around.

[rotting bones]

The thing is, using AI to summarize email actually makes sense -- the volume of email an executive receives is staggering.
I agree that well-written emails would help a lot; but email is, sadly, rarely well-written.

It might be safer to use text to speech. When I asked ChatGPT to summarize a Marx quote, the result was accurate, but I felt like it left out too many of the subtler points. But maybe a busy CEO wants brief notes anyway. Anyway, the discussing podcasts task feels safer to me.

On the other hand, I'm not sure "leftists" these days realize how spoiled they sound when they expect tired people to do tasks better. Studying theories of "agency" seems to have made them believe people fail on purpose. A lot of today's "leftists" don't seem to understand that most people are doing the best they can given the circumstances. Humans generally suck at tasks that don't involve hunting through shrubs to find berries. That's a job we can do for hours and feel fulfilled afterwards. Hence the popularity of sandboxes like Minecraft.

Have they? I don't recall any such predictions. Unless this means AGI, which is still, um, unlikely.

The people who had hard predictions of impossibility often interpreted Godel's incompleteness theorem the way Godel himself did, to mean that intelligence transcends formal systems. Godel intended this to be a direct attack against Turing. Some humanities theorists saw this as a limitation of the STEM approach. However, this is not what the incompleteness theorem states. (Edit: And Godel's alternative to the Turing Machine was later reduced to the Turing Machine.)

I'm not sure there is really a party line; more of a tendancy towards opposition, which itself ranges from skepticism to rejection.

Pretty sure the mainstream leftist commentator line today is that AI can't do any real task right, fails on everything and is also conveniently evil. Here in America, the first inclination of leftists is to cancel any project that uses AI in any capacity whatsoever. I speak from personal experience.

Personally, while I don't think AI does nothing, I do feel there is something of a bubble around.

Wouldn't surprise me. A capitalist economy is 50% bubbles for structural reasons. The internet's bubble burst BEFORE it really took off.

[rotting bones]

energy usage needs to be capped at a level not too much higher than in 3D gaming

Pre-rendered images and video is the right comparison for training. 3D gaming is the right comparison for prediction.

[Raphael]

PS. "Leftist" commentators have been predicting for a while, based on "theory" from the humanities, that AI is somehow impossible.

Yeah, that sentiment has always perplexed me. It never made sense to me unless one assumes implicitly that human intelligence requires supernatural mechanisms that computers cannot use. If one accepts a purely materialist worldview as most leftists claim, then one must logically accept the possibility of artificial intelligence.

given the rarity of human-level intelligence in anything other than humans, and the absence of anything more intelligent than humans, then one must either accept that AI will not equal - much less surpass - human intelligence, or that AI will not occur...

Err, what? How so? Are you arguing that things that are rare can't exist? Are you arguing that what is currently rare must stay rare? Are you arguing that what currently doesn't exist can't exist in the future?

[Raphael]

PS. "Leftist" commentators have been predicting for a while, based on "theory" from the humanities, that AI is somehow impossible. After being decisively proven wrong, it seems like they have moved past shock. Some of them are in denial. Others are in anger, denouncing it as the Great Satan.

You're conflating two issues here: 1) the question of whether some kind of AI is, in principle, possible. On that, of course, you are right.

2) the much more currently urgent question of whether any of the stuff that currently gets pushed on the public under the label "AI" is anywhere near being that AI. On this, you are wrong, and Zitron is right, because the current forms of AI are pathologically incapable of telling truth from falsehoods, and that incapability is built into their very structure, which makes them mostly useless for anything else than playing around.

As jcb pointed out a few posts ago here, if you ask them for book recommendations, they'll make up books that don't exist. As other people pointed out in the past, they once sent tourists asking for restaurant recommendations to a food bank for poor and homeless people. Shortly ago, I saw a post by someone who had asked a new AI chatbot that's supposed to answer any questions people in California might have about fires and fire safety what the phone number of the fire department is, and couldn't get an answer. Yeah, AIs are clearly ready to replace human beings.

[Raphael]

Pretty sure the mainstream leftist commentator line today is that AI can't do any real task right, fails on everything and is also conveniently evil. Here in America, the first inclination of leftists is to cancel any project that uses AI in any capacity whatsoever. I speak from personal experience.

I don't see what's supposed to be wrong with that line.