[beepbooptheory]

Do you think just maybe there is a diffence here because humans need money to survive, and maybe we should have compassion for humans who could hypothetically starve or freeze or suicide or whatever because they have no money? Or is it just silly to care about people like that?

[ergonaught]

That's got nothing to do with whether or not it is "fair" for a learning system to produce content after it has learned.

That is, instead, one of the larger and vastly more important sociocultural issues that actually warrants attention, but never receives it in sufficient degree to address the problem, because, for example, we're arguing whether automated learning is "fair".

[beepbooptheory]

If "fairness" isn't worth figuring out for a society, why is our entire economic order nominally built ontop of such a virtue? How is this not the very thing we are talking about? People starve on the streets right now because any other arrangement of resources has been deemed "unfair." Do we not sign a contract for our labor or for our homes because of shared idea of fairness? Fairness is the ultimate thing we appeal to in our world, it is the only thing that can sustain the intense individuality of the modern world. Dont ambiguate it as a Nietzchean moral fairness here, we are talking about the pseudo-algorithmic fairness of a market which guarantees certain things if you trade enough of your resources.

[belltaco]

Isn't that like saying automated looms should be banned because it meant humans would lose jobs to it? Or buggy whip drivers wanting to ban cars?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Might as well ban computers since they automated and eliminated a lot of manual jobs.

The problem of humans with no money should be solved by a societ safety net and things like UBI.

[beepbooptheory]

Well, the luddites were right in that they were fighting a good and honorable fight.

Until things are, in fact, solved by whatever idea you might have, why should we just accept each new thing that makes our human lives more intolerable? How could you expect any rational person to have that kind of blind trust in a technology, much less "progress" itself, when every single aspect of our world shows that it is who owns the technology that actually benefits from it? I think it is much more crazy just totally rolling over for each new thing that takes your job than it is to maybe fight for your food and shelter.

I think we can do better than UBI, but either way, fighting against this unfairness is fighting for the things we need to continue with some shred of humanity, insofar as this technology is and will be an agent for the consolidation of labor and profit. Its all the same fight, and the historical luddites understood this consciously or not.

Who knows, maybe the internet would have been better off if some people were brave enough to smash some of Google's servers in like 2006..

[hn_throwaway_99]

This is a response to an argument the GP didn't make. One can still have grave concerns about generative AI's potential impact on human society while accepting there is nothing fundamentally unfair about how it scrapes publicly accessible data.

[beepbooptheory]

Ok, so, what is that argument then? Maybe you just want to say: "well this is such a big deal its going to change everything anyway, so we can't judge it on how it will affect today's society, but rather the society it will create." If so, all one can really say to such longtermism is: "well, good luck with that I guess, I will keep trying to survive over here."

[BeFlatXIII]

Teach the suicidal ones the noble art of suicide bombing and force societal change that way.