“So we’re just using hypotheticals” meanwhile your entire argument depends on civilisation definitely collapsing, doing so later definitely being worse, and doing so now leaving humanity able to rebuild.
I offered a possibility. You’ve built a whole prescription for humanity around your predictions.
And your bike analogy involves slowing down and steering to avoid a crash. You’re advocating deliberately crashing because you’ve decided a worse accident is inevitable further down the road.
There’s a lot wrapped up in that certainty, and its a sentiment that does personally annoy me for several reasons: You’re assuming the problems you see won’t be meaningfully understood or addressed by anyone else, and that because you can’t see a workable solution, there isnt one. You’re treating the limits of your own foresight as the limits of what’s possible. Stop and consider whether you really consider yourself an unparalleled engineer and problem solver of the modern era. Dont tell me the answer, just ponder it.
Then, when it comes to your preferred scenario, suddenly humanity can cooperate, adapt and rebuild after civilisation collapses. Why does human ingenuity get to do so much heavy lifting after the catastrophe, but count for so little in preventing it? There’s a huge juxtaposition in that reasoning.
You’ve scrutinised the future you dislike for everything that could go wrong, and waved through the future you prefer on everything that could go right. That’s a very shaky basis for deciding everyone else would be better off enduring a collapse now.
And “if we shut down civilisation now, everything can come back” is doing an extraordinary amount of work there. How are you keeping people fed, water clean, medicines available and nuclear facilities maintained? Who’s coordinating any of that through the collapse you’re welcoming? Those are fairly significant details to skip on the way to “the earth can heal”.
You don’t get to dismiss uncertainty in my argument while treating the most optimistic version of your own catastrophe scenario as a certainty, that’s fucking nonsense.
I get that you’re concerned but this is irrational and you probably need to talk to someone serious if this is actually weighing heavily on you. If its just an idle rant, less so.
AI isnt going to end, the big dog companies might go down, but you can run very good ones on your computer these days. Helps to look into stuff, the unknown is always scarier than the known.
Companies having done that doesn’t make it fundamental to the technology. That’s just something a lot of people who base their worldview on article headlines parrot.
Don’t get me wrong, those practices are bad. But they come from the incentives and behaviour of the companies involved. The technology doesn’t require them. That’s a failure of a system that rewards companies for taking whatever they can get away with.
All of this is a capitalism problem, focusing on the technology is a distraction that will never achieve anything.
My view:
The problem with neither .com nor AI was that the technologies are useless. The problem with the bubble is that many of the companies involved are promising far more than the technology can realistically deliver. Against this backdrop, it doesn’t matter how long you let the bubble run, because meeting those exaggerated expectations is simply impossible in reality.
AI has its uses, particularly as specialised tools for specific fields, but – largely due to the hype – it is currently causing enormous damage on various levels.
Against this backdrop, I believe that the bursting of the bubble will lead to a faster shift away from exaggerated, inefficient and wasteful technological promises towards efficient tools and solutions… and is therefore to be welcomed.
Yeah agreed, but marketing and hyping is how you get people excited and how you get funding. I struggle to imagine how you’d ever remove that from the economic equation. It definitely can have its drawbacks.
Yeah I think your conclusion is pretty likely. Most tools started off inefficient and got more so, because a more efficient tool is more desirable. Broadly speaking.
I dont think its completely impossible that they (the big companies) eek out their existence long enough that their income overcomes their initial outlay. As I say, they arent static, they are still progressing both the software and the hardware. Ramp up their green energy investment, continue progressing the energy efficiency increases per token, consistent supply lines and competition in components and raw materials push prices down. All feasible. None guaranteed, but all feasible.
“So we’re just using hypotheticals” meanwhile your entire argument depends on civilisation definitely collapsing, doing so later definitely being worse, and doing so now leaving humanity able to rebuild.
I offered a possibility. You’ve built a whole prescription for humanity around your predictions.
And your bike analogy involves slowing down and steering to avoid a crash. You’re advocating deliberately crashing because you’ve decided a worse accident is inevitable further down the road.
There’s a lot wrapped up in that certainty, and its a sentiment that does personally annoy me for several reasons: You’re assuming the problems you see won’t be meaningfully understood or addressed by anyone else, and that because you can’t see a workable solution, there isnt one. You’re treating the limits of your own foresight as the limits of what’s possible. Stop and consider whether you really consider yourself an unparalleled engineer and problem solver of the modern era. Dont tell me the answer, just ponder it.
Then, when it comes to your preferred scenario, suddenly humanity can cooperate, adapt and rebuild after civilisation collapses. Why does human ingenuity get to do so much heavy lifting after the catastrophe, but count for so little in preventing it? There’s a huge juxtaposition in that reasoning.
You’ve scrutinised the future you dislike for everything that could go wrong, and waved through the future you prefer on everything that could go right. That’s a very shaky basis for deciding everyone else would be better off enduring a collapse now.
And “if we shut down civilisation now, everything can come back” is doing an extraordinary amount of work there. How are you keeping people fed, water clean, medicines available and nuclear facilities maintained? Who’s coordinating any of that through the collapse you’re welcoming? Those are fairly significant details to skip on the way to “the earth can heal”.
You don’t get to dismiss uncertainty in my argument while treating the most optimistic version of your own catastrophe scenario as a certainty, that’s fucking nonsense.
I get that you’re concerned but this is irrational and you probably need to talk to someone serious if this is actually weighing heavily on you. If its just an idle rant, less so.
AI isnt going to end, the big dog companies might go down, but you can run very good ones on your computer these days. Helps to look into stuff, the unknown is always scarier than the known.
Gonna steal this.
Perfectly sums up most Lemmite’s opinions.
tl;dr
AI is built from mass theft and anything built with it deserves to be stolen.
Companies having done that doesn’t make it fundamental to the technology. That’s just something a lot of people who base their worldview on article headlines parrot.
Don’t get me wrong, those practices are bad. But they come from the incentives and behaviour of the companies involved. The technology doesn’t require them. That’s a failure of a system that rewards companies for taking whatever they can get away with.
All of this is a capitalism problem, focusing on the technology is a distraction that will never achieve anything.
I’ve had a quick look at your discussion here.
My view: The problem with neither .com nor AI was that the technologies are useless. The problem with the bubble is that many of the companies involved are promising far more than the technology can realistically deliver. Against this backdrop, it doesn’t matter how long you let the bubble run, because meeting those exaggerated expectations is simply impossible in reality.
AI has its uses, particularly as specialised tools for specific fields, but – largely due to the hype – it is currently causing enormous damage on various levels. Against this backdrop, I believe that the bursting of the bubble will lead to a faster shift away from exaggerated, inefficient and wasteful technological promises towards efficient tools and solutions… and is therefore to be welcomed.
Yeah agreed, but marketing and hyping is how you get people excited and how you get funding. I struggle to imagine how you’d ever remove that from the economic equation. It definitely can have its drawbacks.
Yeah I think your conclusion is pretty likely. Most tools started off inefficient and got more so, because a more efficient tool is more desirable. Broadly speaking.
I dont think its completely impossible that they (the big companies) eek out their existence long enough that their income overcomes their initial outlay. As I say, they arent static, they are still progressing both the software and the hardware. Ramp up their green energy investment, continue progressing the energy efficiency increases per token, consistent supply lines and competition in components and raw materials push prices down. All feasible. None guaranteed, but all feasible.