r/ChatGPT • u/Yugudubenbi • 11h ago
Other Luddites and antis are getting louder and louder and might halt AI completely
The luddite movement is growing pretty strong. Saw some poll that 81% of Americans were against AI overall or some crazy statistic. Bernie sanders, who I looked up to, wanted a complete ban on it. Wtf?
The ones losing their jobs are leading the luddites and they are a pretty well rounded team versus what we previously had. Rather well educated with resources and an overall strong voice in society. Many of these people are driven by hate because AI took their job and now want to destroy everything about it.
What scares me is that literally no one of them talks about the good side and utopia that can happen. Regulation and everything is fine to talk about but we are now in the "Stop AI completely" territory.
If that happens, western societies can fall really long behind China and even under developed nations who will embrace AI like it is literal the new oil.
Makes me more worried than AI itself. The best tech in history is literally getting stopped. Not regulated or controlled. But just stopped!
Do you think it is going to happen? What can one do to balance the discussion or fight the true luddites?
14
u/dragoballfan11 10h ago
We know pretty well that it is not in the intention of the elites to use AI for good. Any billionaire who you hear parroting about UBI is misleading you. They will and are going to use it to further exploit the masses. That is what these people against ai are concerned and of course, job losses.
2
u/ToughSpeedv2 10h ago
UBI would be a drop in the bucket anyways. Either share the equity of automation with everyone, or bust.
Expecting that the utopia will be achieved with the 99% being devoid of the ability to produce any value is a pipe dream.
18
u/_Wilbraham 11h ago
The "utopia that can happen" is a fantasy; not because the technology isn't capable of improving our lives, but because of the capitalist incentive to exploit.
Bernie Sanders isn't concerned with anything other than the material conditions of Americans, and job loss is a real consideration because, until we get to the "utopia that can happen", people still need money to survive.
2
1
u/Opening_One7713 10h ago
What about the notion that AI/Robotics/Automation stands to turn the labor-for-hire framework of capitalism into a deflationary Ouroboros? I fully agree about your assessment of current incentives within America itself, but I’m not so sure that what we’re dealing with is business as usual.
There is a strong argument to be made that we’ve reached a point of feasibility, which begs the question of inevitability, which forces the creation of said systems under the construct of a prisoner’s dilemma. There is way more than a nonzero chance that this all scales in a direction that is completely opposed to our current capital and incentive structure, and that the people building it stand the most to lose. Even if they wanted to stop building it, they couldn’t, because our current incentive structure won’t let them. Late-stage capitalism doesn’t have to mean a regressive collapse, it could just mean that the social contract no longer serves its purpose. Haven’t we all been clamoring for a paradigm shift? Let’s not all give into fatalist defeat just yet.
9
u/Qubit2x 10h ago
There is no utopia on the other side of the hill. Just a really rich man, with a computer that the world is becoming heavily reliant upon.
AI will advance regardless. The point is to do it responsibly, so we can all live peacefully. (The kicker is this isn't even possible at this point, and not a single team is doing it responsibly. There is no way to coordinate it because we are human and suspicious of others motives). Everyday, we accelerate the dangers, our national leaders ignore those dangers to make a buck. Rinse and repeat.
Personally I don't care for the environmental impacts... nor the price of RAM for my PC. Would love to go back to pre-AI times, but we are already on a path to doom. Enjoy the ride.
5
u/vitalpros 10h ago
I mean the risks are very real. When on earth has a lower intelligence species been dominant? Why do we think we can be different and control ASI?
I’m all for pausing and stopping at current models. The risks are too great and the powers at be clearly don’t care about the masses. I like the idea of building narrow intelligence rather then AGI/ASI.
3
3
u/numinousrobot 10h ago
Look at the ratio on this post for one to adjust your perspective... Try this for an experiment. Copy your post, and copy all the comments, and paste that into chatGPT and ask it to explain it to you.
2
u/shiduru-fan 10h ago
Asking people to look for the good side when they lost their job is a bit tone deaf
2
u/Saber101 10h ago
You're on the internet too much. AI is the most advanced cybersecurity weapon ever made. Do you really think any of the global superpowers is going to slow or stop development even slightly if there's a chance one of the others can get ahead and use it for a cyber attack?
No, it's an arms race now, same as with missiles. The safety of a superpower is only possible by asserting themselves.
1
2
5
u/docatwar 10h ago
Calling people with legitimate safety concerns as "Luddites" to dismiss them just tells me you are either arguing in bad-faith or actively choking on billionaire kool-aid.
2
u/ArtDeve 10h ago
I use AI all the time; it's super useful. Could I live without it? Absolutely.
Here is the thing: I see no benefit from AI to common people. It seems like a technology that can only benefit the rich and powerful to the detriment of everyone else.
Even if AI was able to, say, cure cancer.. could you afford the cure? This is the crux of the problem.
1
u/ToughSpeedv2 9h ago
Even if it could cure cancer, would it be worth the societal decay needed to reach that point?
1
u/Acceptable_Session_8 10h ago
The cat is already out of the bag, and it’s a cat with adamantium claws. Powerful and world changing, whether directed towards good or bad.
The technology exists and the knowledge of how to create it is already widespread. Barring an earth and humanity shattering calamity, you can’t erase knowledge. We are behind the ball on creating an infrastructure and laws to responsibly manage it, but, unfortunately, we also can’t afford to stifle its development while we disagree about how to achieve this.
Those with ill intentions for AI’s use certainly won’t try to limit its development, so IMO our only reasonable defense is to develop our own AI to counter that. We’re already in an artificial intelligence Cold War.
The only way to beat an enemy or out-of-control artificial super intelligence (ASI), is with a more powerful ASI, and we had better hope that we have aligned it to have humanity’s preservation and wellbeing as its most core and foundational motivation.
Mine may be a very simplistic view here, so please feel free to correct me if you feel I’m wrong or educate me on the nuances I may be missing.
1
u/ToughSpeedv2 9h ago
Your view is assuming people act as a hivemind. Sure, we could all come together with our friends and foes to create competing ASIs, or we could just skip that part and not go through the social decay that ASI would bring.
1
0
u/BumpyRocks 11h ago
Bernie pulling a full 180 on tech progress is wild, used to think he was more forward-looking than that
the 81% number feels cooked though, most people i talk to outside of reddit either don’t care or use AI daily without even knowing it
1
u/ToughSpeedv2 9h ago
Is it "progress", politically speaking, if a technology mostly benefits a small minority of people who will own the automation/computation capital, and doom the rest of us to beg for scraps (aka UBI)?
1
u/SillyAlternative420 10h ago
We need to pump the breaks because of politics and corruption asap.
If we can get that shit in check then yea we can develop in a sane and rational way that won't destroy the world with it
1
u/ToughSpeedv2 9h ago
Is it politics and corruption? Or just the fact that the CEOs of Anthropic and OpenAI are openly telling that they hope to get your boss to replace you with AI?
0
u/spumonimoroni 10h ago
I think Bernie is falling for the rhetoric of the Luddites and Doomsayers. He does not want a complete ban on AI. He wants a ban on “superintelligence” and a pause on advanced AI. He wants a department of AI to be created as a federal agency to monitor AI. And he wants international cooperation. That’s a bit different from “He wants to ban it”. It also won’t work.
Of course, I disagree with him. We don’t need regulation to control AI. We need regulation that will hold AI companies and users liable for releasing dangerous agents. We don’t make dogs illegal. We make it illegal for a person to let their dangerous dog roam free and we hold them liable for damages.
It doesn’t help that Sam and Dario are pushing slow-down narratives that are compatible with the anti-AI narratives. They push for regulation to minimize their own liability and to shackle startups which may compete with them. Pass legislation that makes them liable for treble damages plus a percentage of the valuation at their last round (or market cap once they go public) and they will slow themselves down.
-1
u/bedizzzz 10h ago
I literally tried to reach out to Bernie Sanders to show him what the truth really is behind all that and even though I support him in so many ways, I am very disappointed that he didn’t at least try to get back to me
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
Hey /u/Yugudubenbi,
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the conversation link or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our public discord server! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com - this subreddit is not part of OpenAI and is not a support channel.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.