[avaer]

A sentiment a lot of people can get behind, but at this point if AI is getting a do-over, society is getting a do-over, because the economic entanglements are not really fixable without a revolution of current capitalism.

The amount of money that would evaporate if we did AI ethically is unfathomable. Most of big tech would collapse if they had to undo anything they did using stolen IP, as would a large section of the economy that's dependent on it, many people's jobs, and most people's investments.

This isn't an argument against doing AI ethically; in fact it shows how bad things have gotten. But what's the fix?

When people feel this way are they arguing for revolt? A Butlerian Jihad? Or is there another practical solution?

[pixl97]

Yea, AI just feels like the last straw in an ever increasing set of violations of the social contract.

[munk-a]

I think some backlash is inevitable but I really hope we don't end up in Orange Catholic territory. ML & AI is a useful tool and was used long before ChatGPT for really critical things. Additionally ChatGPT and the like do have their uses - they're just massively overhyped.

I am hoping for a more regular kind of reckoning where the market realizes the bubble was silly and we get more rational consumer offerings that are actually priced near to cost - then the utility of these tools will be seen as helpful but in a more limited scope.

[jcgrillo]

Just wait. It's becoming clearer by the day that tech has become a monoculture. It's basically to a first approximation just a crowd of frauds plagiarizing each other (with a few, rare exceptions). Monocultures collapse. To date, the "promise" of AI is still imaginary. It's not living up to the transformative, abundant expectations that are being set. I personally think it's a safe bet it never will--that is, to be economically viable on the scale that the market expects, it needs to actually become AGI. And I'm betting that won't happen.

[ilovecake1984]

It all depends on expectations. I find it useful.

The analogy I use is this. What was a bigger leap in productivity: assembly to vb6 or vb6 to Ai?

I think it’s definitely the first.

[spacechild1]

Yes, AI can be useful, but it also causes many, many problems. Are you sure the positives outweight the negatives when looking at society as a whole?

[jcgrillo]

Yes, I agree there are areas where it's undeniably useful[0]. But that's not going to satisfy market expectations. Devtools is not a large addressable market. It's hard to find examples of real-world applications, which don't totally suck and users don't hate, outside of devtools. I can't think of a single one off the top of my head.

[0] I'm willing to concede this point, but I still maintain nobody has really shown it to be true in any rigorous sense. Maybe that doesn't matter. If people feel it makes them more productive, that's good enough for me.

[neonstatic]

This endless moaning about "capitalism" is lamentable. You are looking at an oligopoly, degenerated through the mechanisms of American-style democracy, but you attribute it all to capitalism, an economic system, not ideology, because it became fashionable to hate on it during the financial crisis of 2007.

[pesus]

> it became fashionable to hate on it during the financial crisis of 2007.

Is it because it's "fashionable", or is it because million of people started directly feeling the adverse effects of it and saw the perpetrators get off scot-free?

[neonstatic]

It's been 19 years. Since then an entire generation has been conditioned to think that saying something bad about capitalism earns them social points. I have seen it so many times - people, who don't even know what capitalism is, saying they are "fighting to bring it down" just because they think it sounds cool. They should read a bit about bureaucracy (Kafka) and gulags (a variety of authors) to get a hint what "bringing it down" leads to. The very same people are happy to be participants in capitalism if it earns them money.

> and saw the perpetrators get off scot-free?

And your argument is that the reason for that is free market and private property? I would suggest it might be corruption in the political system, which happens to be "a federal republic" (since we are discussing the US).

[happytoexplain]

One man's "fashionable" is another man's "popular for concrete reasons".

[neonstatic]

Resentment, projection, and scapegoating are all time favorites for concrete reasons.

[spencerflem]

The core idea of capitalism is that you spend money to make more money. Rich get richer is the basic idea, you invest and those investments make you more. It very necessarily leads to oligarchy when left unchecked.

[neonstatic]

The core ideas of capitalism are private property and free market, not "rich getting richer".

> It very necessarily leads to oligarchy when left unchecked.

Great, let's not leave it unchecked. Unlike other -isms, capitalism does not need to be treated like an ideology to work. Also, maybe let's not attribute obvious failures of the political system to the underlying economic system.

[pixl97]

I mean, America sells the idea that it is capitalism in the flesh, so there is that. Also the endless moaning about "socialism" by the capitalists is just as tiring.

And you sound like a kid, bitching about capitalism has gone on for a long time. Why do you think the US.gov was so anti-communist, they didn't want any competition and so turned capitalism into an identity.