[_doctor_love]

I've been enjoying these articles by 'aphyr and I think they raise important points. Primarily though, they read to me as polemics of a curiously American nature.

The pattern goes something like this:

- this development is bad

- companies will be unrestrained in their use of this development

- there will be no rules so they can do whatever they want

- we are all fucked as a result

But then...propose that we make some laws to put rules around this stuff, also known as regulations and everybody goes "whoa hold up hold up hold up...I dunno about that part."

Dear friends - America has always been this way. Study your 19th and 20th century history. Companies will exploit the shit out of us unless we put some rules in place to prevent it. Yes, that might mean making less money in the short term as regulations cause friction. But in the long term it means we can have a better and actually livable society.

(For what it's worth I'm an American and not an uppity European or Australian taking potshots from across the pond; no offense to Euros or Aussies intended, love you guys)

[SilverElfin]

It’s not that people are against regulations totally, but that the structure of society is broken. People with wealth, including corporations, can influence and control everything with money. Legislators are easily bribed. Lawsuits are expensive and take years. It’s hard to make anything happen unless you’re already rich or connected enough to access the right people.

The real issue is new amendments are needed. But that’s hard. You need 75% of states ratifying. And that seems impossible today on any topic.

[intended]

I’d andd another layer - for American tech workers, regulation also reduces profits. This hurts salaries, stocks options and career growth.

Incentives make the world go round, so even if people recognize the issue, they would rather it become someone else’s problem, than willingly harm their own future.

[slopinthebag]

What regulations would you suggest?

[scoofy]

I mean, whenever I read these types of articles and responses, my reaction is almost always the same: what is this ideal world people are hoping for?

The future of everything is lies... sure, well so was the past, what's your point?

When we say "snake oil salesmen" we literally had people selling these mineral oils, fraudulently, for a century. People yearn for a time when there wasn't an antagonistic relationship between buyer and seller, but it has never existed. There is only one way have that relationship, and it's by having a personal -- repeatable -- relationship with your seller, and that's usually expensive, even if that expense is not monetary. It just the game theory of repeated games.

The easiest way to establish this behavior is to be a regular at a bar while being a good patron that creates a positive experience for everyone else. There are multiple places I frequent where I have no doubt in my mind that if there was an emergency, they might ask me to help out in some way because I'm trustworthy. And they could hand me an envelope of money, knowing I'd not steal it, because it's not worth it for me to take a bit of money and ruin my welcome at this place.

That's not going to happen with online sellers, and it's not going to happen with most corporations. The promise was always "save money through economies of scale, such that you still win even though there is no relationship." For the most part, that's proven true. But as everything has been outsourced to China, and anyone can make a basic version of everything, we're running up against the limits of those benefits. And I truly believe that brands are going to start mattering a lot more going forward for marketplaces.

Shop at Costco because they care about their customers. In other areas where companies don't, you're going to have to do the legwork to find out who is going to treat you right. That sucks, and it'll probably be more expensive, but that's the antagonistic relationship that buyers and sellers have naturally. Regulation helps, yes, but it's not some cure all. The expectation that you can just go with the person with the lowest price and get quality services is not a thing that's every existed.

[CamperBob2]

But then...propose that we make some laws to put rules around this stuff, also known as regulations and everybody goes "whoa hold up hold up hold up...I dunno about that part."

Of course, what those who call for regulation of AI or other nascent technologies are really saying is, "Unqualified and/or biased and/or corrupt and/or dull-witted people should make decisions that affect us all, based on incomplete, misleading or rapidly-evolving information, with the power to enforce them at gunpoint."

And then they wonder why other countries beat their own.

[_doctor_love]

I'm sorry...wut?

[solid_fuel]

This interaction nicely illustrates why so many Americans sound hopeless when talking about these developments. We can't even get our fellow citizens to do anything about the school shootings, our incredibly expensive healthcare, the homelessness crisis, or really anything else. Instead we are surrounded by conservative reactionaries who view "let's stop dumping cyanide into the town pond" as a communist plot to steal their religion.

So yeah, when people around here look at "AI" and all the harm it's already doing, they don't any hope that regulations will be put in place before more harm is done.

[CamperBob2]

The person comparing a building full of computers to dumping cyanide in the town pond is the reactionary in this conversation.

[CamperBob2]

I mean, it's pretty clear how it plays out, if you look at the EU. Those who want the US to work that way need to be fought, and fought hard.