[agentultra]

Again, they didn’t smash the machines because they hated the technology or wanted everyone to be making lace by hand.

They were arguing for basic human rights in the workplace. Things like child labour were still super common and were among the practices the Luddites wanted to abolish. Along with the workhouses they wanted to replace with protection for workers (they didn’t have the word for it but they wanted a social security system).

They smashed the machines for leverage. There was little labour law at the time. Most of it was written by the capital holders with the help of the constabulary. Things like showing up to work on time or no pay, etc. Violence, controlled violence, was the tool they used to try and get the capital holders to the table and negotiate.

It failed, as we know, and it was a bloody failure. People were executed and jailed. The movement became a pejorative for someone who is backwards and against technology and progress.

[embedding-shape]

I think the vibe is generally same with AI too. If people believe AI will genuinely be used for good (like many in China seem to think, I get the feeling) then the public at large seems fine with industry focusing on it. But when people have the feeling or even expectation that it'll be used for things like increasing the wealth/wage/inequality gap, control of the masses, automated widespread surveillance and more, you get the violent attacks on data centers and such.

Maybe if these people who are basically wealthier than some countries would share their loot or just care a tiny bit about 99% of the rest of the world, people would feel differently about things. Use AI and your data centers to figure out how to quench, feed and power the entire world, and probably a bunch of people who hate AI would even get onboard.

[CuriouslyC]

People in China think AI will be used for good because China has a track record of protecting workers from the fallout of automation (see courts ruling people can't be wholesale replaced with AI), and they view the ridiculous surveillance less negatively because the party delivers low crime and rapidly improving economic circumstances.

[embedding-shape]

Hope you don't mind me asking, is this perspective and view built from living in China and speaking with Chinese individuals? Just curious about the source of this understanding you have.

[CuriouslyC]

I worked in Taiwan for a while on defense related stuff.

[paul7986]

If AI was paying for us all the content we create daily just by living, humans would love it. It would be a cyclical relationship where AI thrives off all the daily content all humans create daily and AI pays us for the privilege to thrive off of us (our content).

I saw Trump saying AI companies are discussing offering Americans stock in AI companies so that's one way where the narrative changes and a few days I thought of one way how AI can pay all of us for our content ..posted quick thoughts on my Substack... https://ryanspahn.substack.com/p/ai-to-pay-for-all-americans...

Overall, AI is irrelevant without us and it needs to pay us to keep it relevant I think! It can not continue to be a bloodsucker!

[embedding-shape]

> If AI was paying for us all the content we create daily just by living, humans would love it. It would be a cyclical relationship where AI thrives off all the daily content all humans create daily and AI pays us for the privilege to thrive off of us (our content).

I think you're on to something. Imagine OpenAI and Anthropic suddenly started funding millions of artists worldwide, basically "we pay monthly rent and food, you get to create what you want, we get rights to train on your output while you retain ownership", wonder how many would actually agree to that?

[idle_zealot]

I don't think a private company could possibly swing that, but that general arrangement would be welcome as part of a copyright reform package. Like the mandatory licensing we did for song covers back when we cared more about pretending that copyright was meant to balance art and profits. You want to train on something? Fine, no need to negotiate 1,000,000,000 licenses, that would be impossible. Just check the registry for ownership and wire some cash.

[duncangh]

Interested to read more about this particular crossroads of copyright case law.

Also does the last sentence reflect (at least in part) what you describe (in partial jest?) in the last sentence? Iirc artists previously had to call to get permission from original owner of songs samples and I remember hearing anecdotes like Kanye promising someone he wouldn’t swear in a song with the sample of it were used (and I think most of ye’s samples constitute fair use but not sure). Anyways, you seem knowledgeable to joke about this ultra niche so thought I would ask ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[paul7986]

And thinking about all our daily conversations that include data about businesses we patronize.. that is data / content AI can use too. Content we should be paid for alongside our pics, songs, videos and any human content we create that helps AI stay relevant!

[idle_zealot]

It sounds to me like you're just describing the fact that these models are only trainable in the context of a functioning society, and are capturing that value. It's more than just the snippets of public conversation and paper trails, and it would be a problem in and of itself to try to account for what every person is owed in exchange for the marginal value they contribute. In other words, you're reinventing taxation and redistributive policies through the lenses of data proprietorship.

[paul7986]

i saw the CEO of Cloudflare saying he thinks AI should pay us to access our content. That made me think every human should have a website they publish to and AI pays a toll to access their website/content.

And I think yes these models would die if we all went back to living off the land.