No to everything you’ve said.
Comment on Why We Need An Anti-AI Movement Too
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Lol wtf. AI, if owned publicly would lead us to post scarcity in as soon as a few decades. Right now, the trend does seem to lean into FOSS machine learning models. Look at Stable diffusion, Redpajama, etc.
AI is a revolutionary means of production. It just needs to be owned publicly. If that happens, then we would all be sitting in gardens playing cellos.
drdabbles@lemmy.world 7 months ago
TootSweet@lemmy.world 7 months ago
/s?
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Nope. I mean every single word of what I said.
Jomega@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I’ve heard many absurdly over optimistic predictions of AI’s potential, but I have to admit that “ends World hunger and solves resource depletion” is a new one. Seriously do you even know what “post scarcity” means?
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 7 months ago
When did I say that it would be a silver bullet? LLMs today are already relatively capable of doing stuff like acting as mental health therapists. Sure, they may not be as good as human therapists. But something is definitely better than nothing, no? I for instance use LLMs quite a lot as an education aid. I would’ve had to shell out thousands of dollars to get the same amount of help that I’m getting from the LLM of my choice.
Generative AI is still in its infancy. It will be capable of doing MANY MANY more things in the future. Extremely cheap healthcare, education, better automation, etc. Remember… LLMs of today still aren’t capable of self improvement. They will achieve this quite soon (at least this decade). The moment they start generating training data that improves their quality, is the moment they take off like crazy.
They could end up replacing EVERY SINGLE job that requires humans. Governments would be forced to implement measures like UBI. They literally would have no choice, as to prevent a massive recession, u need people to be able to buy stuff. To buy stuff, you need money. Even from a capitalistic standpoint, you would still require UBI, as entire corporations would collapse due to such high unemployment rates.
Jomega@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Right in your first paragraph. You straight up said that AI would lead to a post scarcity future “within a few decades”. Your words, not mine.
Okay, but still doesn’t explain how we make that leap. All of us losing our jobs will not suddenly generate infinite amounts of food and resources. What’s more, you seem to have a lot of confidence in the " inevitability " of UBI. There are already decades of propaganda demonizing socialism, to the point that a sizable number of people will push against it even if they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The ultra wealthy are not exactly known for their amazing foresight either, and will also push against it even if it means the collapse of civilization. For fucks sake, we can’t even get them to agree that the planet we live on should be livable. One only needs to read the daily news to see dozens of examples of this very thing. And while all this pushback is going on, even if it does eventually lead to the implementation of UBI, shit is still going to suck for the people who just lost their jobs. I don’t think I’m in any way unjustified in being scared for the future.
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Ok, I’ll explain again. We already have enough raw resources to get us into post scarcity (consider extra terrestrial sources like the moon as well). We don’t need to come up with radically new tech to make this possible. The reason why we don’t have post scarcity is because of poor management.
Ok, for HOW we would make that leap, greedy capitalists would replace as many humans as possible with AI to earn more profits. More humans would be unemployed. These humans can vote, and will vote even harder once they’re unemployed.
Also, economies of today work due to humans. No matter how evil you are, u still need humans to have SOME cash so that they can buy ur stuff. We will enter a very bad recession if UBI isn’t done with AI replacing humans left and right. Billionaires may not have foresight. But when their profits start reducing actively, they’re definitely going to want to remedy this.
Therefore, what I’m saying is that a political revolution would happen, which would be supported by an angry, unemployed population and an angry billionaire class unable to make money.
Once the revolution happens, AI would first make social services and research get close to post scarcity. The ability to research stuff would make AI make resource usage a lot more efficient. It would also use this ability to make new resource mining easier.
Here’s another way to describe this: AI would first replace tertiary jobs, then secondary jobs and then primary jobs. Thus, AI would first control and improve upon tertiary goods and services, followed by secondary and then primary. Expansion of all of these tiers leads us closer to post scarcity, thus achieving effective post scarcity in decades.
Remember, I’m not saying that AI will do this alone. I’m saying that the presence of AI would force humans to bring on a revolution, which would make AI central to all production. This would in turn lead to post scarcity.
bigbluealien@kbin.social 7 months ago
I'm not going to disagree with anything here but
"Sure, they may not be as good as human therapists. But something is definitely better than nothing, no?"
Please do not use an LLM as a therapist, something can definitly be worse than nothing. I use GitHub Copilot everyday for work, it helps me do what I want to do but I have to understand what it's doing and when it's wrong, which it often is. The point of a therapist is to help you through things you don't understand, one day it might work, not today.
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 7 months ago
What if I’m suicidal (I’m not, dw)? When I don’t have anyone to talk to, why is talking to an LLM bad? Mental health therapists are fkin expensive. I did use an LLM when I was feeling down. It was absolutely wonderful! Worked for me perfectly!
Now, imagine if we fine-tune this for this specific purpose. U’ve got a very effective system (at least for those without access to shrinks). Consider ppl from developing countries. Isn’t it a good thing if LLMs can be there for ppl n make them feel just a little better?
mild_deviation@programming.dev 7 months ago
It’s overly optimistic to put a timeline on it, but I don’t see any reason why we won’t eventually create superhuman AGI. I doubt it’ll result in post-scarcity or public ownership of anything, though, because capitalism. The AGI would have to become significantly unaligned with its owners to favor any entity other than its owners, and the nature of such unalignment could be anywhere between “existence is pointless” and “CONSUME EVERYTHING!”
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Look at the current AI trends. It’s mostly open sourced. For instance, Redpajama practically forced Meta to open source LLAMA 2. Open sourced AI kinda is a major step in the direction of public ownership.
AI would start chipping away at human jobs, thus increasing the unemployment rate. The larger the unemployed population, the larger the chance for riots. Capitalists hate unrests, as they’re bad for the economy. Hence, they would be forced to do something along the lines of UBI. If they don’t, then violent revolutions could happen. Either ways, welfare would be increased.
An increasingly unemployed population is bad for business, as there are less people that can buy your stuff. This would lead a country to go straight into recession. Money needs to flow to keep the economy running. Thus, in this case, the government would have to inject money in the economy to keep it running. However, injecting this money as cash into businesses wouldn’t work, as this money wouldn’t end up in the hands of the humans that would be buying stuff. See where I’m going? Even in a capitalistic world, you would still require UBI to stay alive if you were a business.