[areoform]

The first computers were used for war.

The Harvard Mark I was used by von Neumann to calculate the physics of implosion. And then right afterwards, ENIAC was used to calculate the feasibility of the H-bomb. They called it the "Los Alamos problem."

The first computer network, SAGE (or, Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) brought together RADAR data from across the US with air-traffic control data and military flight data to detect overflight by the USSR. It could direct and control fighters to intercept those planes.

If you were sitting there, in 1955, would you have believed that computers and their networks would bring about an extraordinary age?

Imagine if von Neumann and his ilk started campaigning in 1955 to limit the development and use of computers, because surely they can only be used to make weapons, right? Right?

We were lucky to have visionary people like Joe Licklider who could look past the present and see the future. In 1963, he wrote a memo calling for an "Intergalactic Computer Network" (because he knew engineers under-delivered. So if he asked for a galaxy, at least he'd get a planet). And he gave these machines to scientists and people like the original hackers at MIT to play with.

What if Licklider had written memos about how we had to "pace" computers to make sure that other countries wouldn't be able to develop implosion technologies or systems like SAGE? What then?

Do you think you would have the jobs and the prosperity you do today?

If instead of giving away this technology, spreading it, and putting down the seeds for ARPA-net, Licklider had written memos from "concerned scientists" (and I'm sure he could have found a bunch) talking about how computers can only be used for weapons and war! So stop the proliferation of computers! We can't imagine a world with computers small enough to fit inside everything! Even wall sockets! What if your wall socket could do war?!

They didn't, because they knew there's no better way to kill a better future for all mankind than to control it.

† yes, peace. We are more peaceful than we have ever been. Humans can be a violent lot even when reluctant to kill.

[alach11]

We were incredibly lucky that computing and nuclear weapons led to a stable geopolitical equilibrium (mutually assured destruction). There were certainly a few scary points where we were still settling into that equilibrium during the Cold War.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it seems very hard to predict. Why do you think AI advancements will lead to a stable equilibrium?

[areoform]

Equilibrium for whom? Equilibrium for what?

Here's what I know. Every day, I read a 5 to 10 incoming emails from young people in rural Africa, Asia, Europe and (heck) the US. People who have had no other resources and options, but are tremendously gifted and somehow got their hands on an internet connected device (usually a very cheap smartphone and/or cheap old computer).

These people, who are usually teenagers, end up getting connected to Claude, who then gives them a list of things to learn, people to contact, and helps them make things. And they actually do. They make robots. They learn new things and try to improve themselves and others. And some want to change the world / do groundbreaking research.

When you sit down and start pricing and doling out AI from behind regulatory gates, you shut those people out.

There are a lot of smart people in this world who have traditionally been unable to get access to resources and education. MOOCs didn't do much / help. But these AIs? They were born multi-lingual. They can talk in any language. They can tailor their responses to their audience. And they can help broaden these people's horizons.

There are no tutors around them. There is no one who is coming to help. But an AI that can run off of a small battery and a connection to a cellular network can give them access to genuine intelligence to make their world better.

I met one sixteen year old who was accessing Claude surreptitiously (by begging people) and was trying to apply some really fascinating biomimetic fluid dynamics observations to aerospace. This person was born in one of the more under-resourced parts of the world. And Claude gave them a list of people to reach out to who could help.

If you want a golden age for humanity, you should be asking for Licklider's Man-Machine Symbiosis.

[throwaway0123_5]

The outcome that you're describing of AIs facilitating education for disadvantaged people is great, but isn't AI simultaneously significantly devaluing education (excluding of course education pursued for intrinsic reasons, which I'm sure many people will always pursue) and removing the need for educated people? Or at least intended to be doing so, even if it isn't accomplishing it yet?

Your examples seem to be of humans educating themselves so as to contribute to the world intellectually, but the promise of AI (and what most frontier lab employees seem to be saying) is that it will soon eclipse human intellect in almost all ways. If such a world is what we end up with, I don't see humans meaningfully contributing to "groundbreaking research" and a golden age for humanity seems to be mostly contingent on whether or not we take political actions to ensure that AI benefits everyone.

[watwut]

Young people with shut of from education and resources are building robots with the help of Claude after Claude existing for few years only? Like common. Young person with no support does not get to build a robot, because it is actually an expensive thing to do. And learning robotics with no education but few years of Claude is also implausible.

[esafak]

A lot of atomic scientists did regret their work.

[areoform]

Yes, and did you see them oppose computing? They promoted it and tried to use nuclear energy for peace.

[red_green_yell]

I think this is a spot on analogy and would two more: the hand wringing over the release of the printing press and the internet. In both cases the people in power were terrified that the masses would use their newfound power to do dangerous things. In both cases bad things did happen (market bubbles, scams, witch hunts, spread of knowledge on making poisons), but trying to put the cat in the bag by pacing the printing press or the internet would have been a fool's errand, and over the long run both inventions massively improved the lives of society overall.