So the problem is everything moving to the cloud and that cloud being mostly controlled by a small number of big players, right? I still don’t know what the solution to that should be. In my mind, we can either assume that they’ll successfully take over and we give up (so why not make our lives easier while we’re here?), or we fight back while we still have access to the technology.
Make AI unusable. Keep Data Centers rare, keep tokens expensive, make sure no one is willing to spend on AI, and let the megacorps collapse under the weight of debt they can’t pay off. When they can’t fight back, start passing laws that outlaw private AI development and nationalize the major models. Start fighting for anti-trust laws with teeth, reduce corporate copyright entitlements while enforcing human IP rights, and void the whole concept of software patents.
Or die. Dying is always an option. I think we’d all rather avoid that one though.
I think we should clarify what we mean by AI first. I’m under the impression that you’re talking about generative models. I don’t think it makes sense to ban all form of automation. But if you really do mean all automations, then I’d like to hear the reasoning for that.
If you want to drop the marketing buzzwords and be specific, yes, LLMs, image generation/graphic design and other generative models, but also machine assisted data analytics need to be heavily regulated and taxed into a box. Military and law enforcement applications need to be strictly state owned, automated surveillance needs to be put on a bonfire entirely. There’s a lot of different classes and categories of “AI” that need to be completely re-thought, but you are correct, I am not entirely against all categories of automation.
It seems we are in agreement on most of this. These generative models aren’t going to fill your pantry or do your chores. They can help through world models, but I’m hoping to get things working without that.
Of course, then you run into the problem of access vs cost. Running the AI requires resources, those resources have market value so you need to make money. Setting aside the fact that by definition you are making sure those resources aren’t being expended on something else potentially more conducive to life, you now have to limit access and/or features to those who can pay, ie. not the people who are struggling the most and could most use the help. Given the price of processing power alone right now, let alone the rest of it, how do you propose these tools become available to the places they can do the most good?
There’s also the problem that most engineers scratch their own itch, not other people’s. The tools you’re developing almost always tend to focus on things that are personal struggles. Your tools are often going to be solving problems the typical person will never have, or at the very least, are so low priority compared to everything else your tools are inconsequential. What you need is people, and feedback mechanisms that can help identify opportunities… you know like a bureaucracy.
So the problem is everything moving to the cloud and that cloud being mostly controlled by a small number of big players, right? I still don’t know what the solution to that should be. In my mind, we can either assume that they’ll successfully take over and we give up (so why not make our lives easier while we’re here?), or we fight back while we still have access to the technology.
Make AI unusable. Keep Data Centers rare, keep tokens expensive, make sure no one is willing to spend on AI, and let the megacorps collapse under the weight of debt they can’t pay off. When they can’t fight back, start passing laws that outlaw private AI development and nationalize the major models. Start fighting for anti-trust laws with teeth, reduce corporate copyright entitlements while enforcing human IP rights, and void the whole concept of software patents.
Or die. Dying is always an option. I think we’d all rather avoid that one though.
I think we should clarify what we mean by AI first. I’m under the impression that you’re talking about generative models. I don’t think it makes sense to ban all form of automation. But if you really do mean all automations, then I’d like to hear the reasoning for that.
If you want to drop the marketing buzzwords and be specific, yes, LLMs, image generation/graphic design and other generative models, but also machine assisted data analytics need to be heavily regulated and taxed into a box. Military and law enforcement applications need to be strictly state owned, automated surveillance needs to be put on a bonfire entirely. There’s a lot of different classes and categories of “AI” that need to be completely re-thought, but you are correct, I am not entirely against all categories of automation.
It seems we are in agreement on most of this. These generative models aren’t going to fill your pantry or do your chores. They can help through world models, but I’m hoping to get things working without that.
Of course, then you run into the problem of access vs cost. Running the AI requires resources, those resources have market value so you need to make money. Setting aside the fact that by definition you are making sure those resources aren’t being expended on something else potentially more conducive to life, you now have to limit access and/or features to those who can pay, ie. not the people who are struggling the most and could most use the help. Given the price of processing power alone right now, let alone the rest of it, how do you propose these tools become available to the places they can do the most good?
There’s also the problem that most engineers scratch their own itch, not other people’s. The tools you’re developing almost always tend to focus on things that are personal struggles. Your tools are often going to be solving problems the typical person will never have, or at the very least, are so low priority compared to everything else your tools are inconsequential. What you need is people, and feedback mechanisms that can help identify opportunities… you know like a bureaucracy.