Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 4:51 pm

malloc wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 3:52 pm Technically no, although I do think there are genuine commonalities. The tech industry consists mainly of wealthy cishet men while artists include many queer and neurodivergent people. There is an indisputable power difference between a cishet software engineer making a quarter million every year and a queer disabled furry artist dependent on commissions.

Um, could you substantiate your assertion that the tech industry is more predominately cisgendered and heterosexual and neurotypical than artists? (Consider the case of people such as Sophie Wilson, for instance...)

And don't forget Lynn Conway either.

Quite honestly, this whole situation has greatly tarnished my opinion of digital technology. Compared with most left wingers I know who have nothing but for disdain for it, I have generally regarded it with some degree of sympathy. But now I feel increasingly convinced that the people in charge have nothing good in store for the rest of us. The only question now is how to resist their blitzkrieg against art and human condition more generally.

malloc wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 3:52 pmThe tech industry consists mainly of wealthy cishet men while artists include many queer and neurodivergent people. There is an indisputable power difference between a cishet software engineer making a quarter million every year and a queer disabled furry artist dependent on commissions. What do you call it when the former creates a machine to take over the culture and means of subsistence of the latter if not appropriation?

"late-stage capitalism"

Although LGBTQIA+ folk do seem to be overrepresented in the arts (and it must be emphasised that, stereotypes notwithstanding, there are lots of successful conservative cishet white male artists out there), I don't see the arts in general as something originating solely with them in the same way that, for instance, particular styles of art originate with particular cultural groups. Cultural appropriation relies on a power differential, but not every power differential causes the particular form of exploitation called "cultural appropriation".

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 12:10 pm

malloc wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 3:52 pmThe tech industry consists mainly of wealthy cishet men while artists include many queer and neurodivergent people. There is an indisputable power difference between a cishet software engineer making a quarter million every year and a queer disabled furry artist dependent on commissions. What do you call it when the former creates a machine to take over the culture and means of subsistence of the latter if not appropriation?

"late-stage capitalism"

Although LGBTQIA+ folk do seem to be overrepresented in the arts (and it must be emphasised that, stereotypes notwithstanding, there are lots of successful conservative cishet white male artists out there), I don't see the arts in general as something originating solely with them in the same way that, for instance, particular styles of art originate with particular cultural groups. Cultural appropriation relies on a power differential, but not every power differential causes the particular form of exploitation called "cultural appropriation".

I strongly agree. While there are many LGBTQIA+ artists, there really is no such a thing as LGBTQIA+ art. And even if there were art styles common amongst LGBTQIA+ people, I disagree with the idea that cisgendered, heterosexual people ought to be automatically disqualified from making art of such styles simply due to being classified in a manner that they do not choose (as being heterosexual or cisgendered is not a choice just as much as being LGBTQIA+ is not a choice).

It seems difficult, though, to understand why the wealthy are throwing so much money at artificial intelligence when they already have plenty of natural intelligence at their disposal. It is a well-known principle of ecology that two species cannot occupy the same niche without coming into conflict. Until recently, it seemed like automation was trending toward some form of niche partitioning, with humans filling intellectual positions and automatons filling more menial ones. Recent developments suggest to me that they have all jobs on the chopping block, not just menial ones. You must admit that this drive to automate everything looks really suspicious and dangerous to someone outside the tech industry. You may find the concept of artificial intelligence fascinating, but to everyone else it represents unbeatable competition for dwindling jobs.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 7:16 pm It seems difficult, though, to understand why the wealthy are throwing so much money at artificial intelligence when they already have plenty of natural intelligence at their disposal.

Honestly, it really looks like a speculative bubble. As far as I can see big companies throwing a ton of money at it because other big companies are throwing a ton of money at it. Tech companies are perpetually afraid of missing out on the next big thing.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 7:16 pmIt seems difficult, though, to understand why the wealthy are throwing so much money at artificial intelligence when they already have plenty of natural intelligence at their disposal.

The wealthy throw a lot of money at trying to make more money even when they already have more money than they know what to do with. Just look at cryptocurrency (speaking of bubbles that have sucked in tech bros).

All that remains is figuring out how to resist this trend. We all know about the recommendations for fighting climate change, using alternatives to fossil fuels, eating less meat, and so forth. But what can we do to resist this kind of radical automation? Boycotts seem an obvious answer, although the tech industry has taken over so much these days that boycotting it seems wildly impractical. Perhaps we should be pushing for regulations on AI research or tax incentives for employing humans over automation.

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:13 am All that remains is figuring out how to resist this trend. We all know about the recommendations for fighting climate change, using alternatives to fossil fuels, eating less meat, and so forth. But what can we do to resist this kind of radical automation? Boycotts seem an obvious answer, although the tech industry has taken over so much these days that boycotting it seems wildly impractical. Perhaps we should be pushing for regulations on AI research or tax incentives for employing humans over automation.

I think you assume that all this automation is a lot more perfect than it is, especially in creative areas. Like yeah, we can get some pretty cool pictures from art AI. But AI are only as good as the training data they're given. Which in visual art AI is actual pieces of art made by humans. Which has already run into moral and legal issues due to using art without permission by the folks who own the rights to it. And similar moral/legal issues are likely to come up for any other artAI. Which means, at the very least, AI will need human oversight and not just by the people who made and trained them. And until they become much more complex, possibly even sentient themselves and likely long after that, they will still need humans to give them inputs, training and correction.

Also, again, with humans being humans, I think if the CEOs and tech bros of the world try to bar people from any and all resources needed to live because all jobs have been automated, those resources will be stolen and the 1% will have their heads separated from their bodies via automated guillotine.

linguistcat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:42 am and the 1% will have their heads separated from their bodies via automated guillotine.

I fear for the day when AI will determine who gets sent to the National Razor.

The kind of revolution where a lot of people lose their heads, if it should happen in the near future, isn't likely the target the 1 percent; it's more likely to target people like most of the members of this Board, because we're, like, weird and stuff, and supposedly think our book-larnin makes us so smart, and because the revolutionaries will probably be told by their leaders that we all torture children in secret rituals.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:51 pmI fear for the day when AI will determine who gets sent to the National Razor.

All the more reason to begin working against this possibility now. We really should have subjected such a powerful and dangerous technology to more oversight in the first place, much like nuclear power. Now that it has already achieved substantial and highly destructive breakthroughs, introducing regulation is considerably harder but still possible.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:20 pm The kind of revolution where a lot of people lose their heads, if it should happen in the near future, isn't likely the target the 1 percent; it's more likely to target people like most of the members of this Board, because we're, like, weird and stuff, and supposedly think our book-larnin makes us so smart, and because the revolutionaries will probably be told by their leaders that we all torture children in secret rituals.

The thing is that those kinds of people don't need a popular revolution to gain power — they can do so through the established structures, and failing that, though coup d'etat — as they have tried right here in America.

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:53 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:51 pmI fear for the day when AI will determine who gets sent to the National Razor.

All the more reason to begin working against this possibility now. We really should have subjected such a powerful and dangerous technology to more oversight in the first place, much like nuclear power. Now that it has already achieved substantial and highly destructive breakthroughs, introducing regulation is considerably harder but still possible.

I was partially speaking in jest in response to:

linguistcat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:42 am and the 1% will have their heads separated from their bodies via automated guillotine.

largely because revolutionary violence is probably the least likely kind of violence to be automated in such a fashion.

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:13 am All that remains is figuring out how to resist this trend. We all know about the recommendations for fighting climate change, using alternatives to fossil fuels, eating less meat, and so forth. But what can we do to resist this kind of radical automation? Boycotts seem an obvious answer, although the tech industry has taken over so much these days that boycotting it seems wildly impractical. Perhaps we should be pushing for regulations on AI research or tax incentives for employing humans over automation.

Back in 2017 a presidential candidate suggested taxing AIs and using the proceeds to fund UBI.

I think that's premature.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 4:22 am
Back in 2017 a presidential candidate suggested taxing AIs and using the proceeds to fund UBI.

I think that's premature.

Might make sense at some point in the future, though.

Re: malloc's idea of "oversight". I think that makes sense when it comes to applying AI, less so when it comes to AI research. Let me explain.

AI research can be done pretty much anywhere, and is therefore very different to control. If, 30 years ago, all countries in the world except Singapore had banned AI research, AI research would simply have taken place in Singapore.

At least some AI applications, on the other hand, by their very nature have to take place in specific places. If, for instance, France would ban self-driving cars, French logistics companies wouldn't be able to simply ship stuff from Reims to Lyon on Norwegian roads. So in that particular context, a little bit of Luddism might actually make some limited amount of sense.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 4:22 amBack in 2017 a presidential candidate suggested taxing AIs and using the proceeds to fund UBI.

I think that's premature.

Is it though? It seems easier to implement such a thing when AI is much less established. By the time AI has taken over half of our jobs, taxing it will face intense lobbying opposition. The companies using AIs instead of humans will have record profits from not having to pay wages and those profits will translate into funds to lobby politicians and such. We can already see this problem on the horizon so it makes no sense to wait until all hell has broken loose like we did with global warming.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 7:34 amAI research can be done pretty much anywhere, and is therefore very different to control. If, 30 years ago, all countries in the world except Singapore had banned AI research, AI research would simply have taken place in Singapore.

Then perhaps we need an international treaty like with nuclear weapons and such. The solution isn't simply to surrender to the problem. It seems like avoiding powerful tech companies putting everyone out of work or even unleashing a robot apocalypse would appeal to every country whatever its differences.

Point taken. Thinking on this a bit more, one problem I see is that job loss due to automation is hard to pinpoint.
I believe a good starting point would be to reduce the work week (to adjust for improved productivity), and implement UBI. Then there's the question of profit. Taxation is a possibility; but what I'd really like is measures to have a lot more widespread and accessible capital ownership.

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:24 am
Then perhaps we need an international treaty like with nuclear weapons and such. The solution isn't simply to surrender to the problem. It seems like avoiding powerful tech companies putting everyone out of work or even unleashing a robot apocalypse would appeal to every country whatever its differences.

Reaping the profits from developing AIs if other countries have banned them would appeal to a lot of countries (or, more accurately, governments), too.