Yeah, it’s in AI companies interest to hype how all powerful their product is. I’m not necessarily talking about that.

When I say potentially, I’m not a doomer, so not trying to say there’s no hope, I do think we can make the world better than it is.

That said, one example of dystopian future: one of my clients makes networked security cameras. I saw a presentation where they were showing off their AI search capability. They had a static shot of an expressway, with hours of footage, and they said “I want to find a person in a bus wearing a brown shirt” and just like that pulled up the relevant moment. Not something you want an authoritarian to have. They’re going to get it anyways. But would love to have similar power available to the people.

Likewise when you think about accumulation of capital, which is shorthand for accumulation of power. AI will allow elites to accelerate that accumulation and have less use for people. “Who cares if you go on strike? I don’t need you.”

Having open source AI can turn the tables: “Who cares if you raised the price? I’ll make it myself.”

I don’t think you’re engaging with what I’m saying sincerely, and I’m trying to do that with you.

You’re right, we don’t “need” most modern conveniences. But they save us time and provide an improved quality of life. Why do we need power tools? Why motors? Why electricity, running water, artificial light? I joke, but AI is one of a long chain of tools designed to save us time, or extend our capabilities and reach. Why are you particularly opposed to this one over others? I return to my argument: AI is concerning because of its potential for change. I don’t think we can prevent it from existing, but we can make it accessible to normal people and not solely the domain of the rich.

It doesn’t need to be our new cyber god for it to matter. All the software developers I know use AI as a tool. One person I know who heads a department at a publicly traded company you’ve probably heard of said they’re not hiring more junior developers, and is worried about his long term career outlook.

That’s concerning right? Capitalists who have a choice between hiring ten people or hiring one person who supervises an AI doing the work of nine are going to choose the cheaper option, and pocket the difference.

To say that LLMs are not useful to me indicates a lack of familiarity. I’m not taking about bullshit “write this email for me” type stuff, I mean like “write this web app for me” “find this type of document in this massive trove of documents” “troubleshoot this technical issue”. And it can do it.

LLMs are not replacing humans, but they are reducing labor required for many tasks. Who receives the benefit from that reduced labor? Right now, owners. That’s why I support open source AI or preferably democratic-entity-only open source AI.

I don’t see it as fear mongering. What do you think of open source software like Linux, Firefox, VLC and so on? Because a similar argument is made there - we need to use these tools day to day, and the only option being to pay a corporation to use them would make us literally poorer, and we also wouldn’t have the features and quality we see in Windows, Mac, Chrome etc if there weren’t open source competitors.

Is lack of open source AI currently a civilizational existential threat? No. Could it be if current trends continue? Potentially. Things could get pretty dystopian if only the mega rich control tools with ultra-intelligence.

There are some open models right now, but they’re mostly ones created by private enterprise that were released to the public. Creating models is more resource intensive than making open source software. So it makes sense to pool resources for the public good.

You’re right that global warming is an existential threat. And right now the power grid is contributing to it.

At the same time, we’re seeing constant innovations in solar power and battery technology, while the cost of both are going down. Solar is now the cheapest source of energy per unit. There is enough energy from the sun to cover multiples of all current energy use by humans.

AI models started out as extremely energy intensive, but are becoming increasingly more efficient. You can now run models on your phone with abilities which previously required a server running dedicated graphics cards.

You’re also right that we shouldn’t outsource critical thinking. Still to say AI has “all the worst use cases” is wrong. Yes, it has plenty of bad use cases, by many great ones. I use it in my day to day work to save time.

Something like a law banning the use of AI will never pass, and if it did, other countries wouldn’t also pass it. A country which uses AI will outperform one that does not (economically, although probably militarily as well). In that scenario, leaving AI capability in the hands of private enterprise makes us subject to the whims of rich elites. For an analog see the case of Elon Musk turning Starlink on/off in Ukraine. Which again is why I do think there’s value in open source AI, and more specifically AI only available to democratically controlled entities - nation states but also things like worker cooperatives to compete with corporations.

I bet me and the person I’m responding to have a ton in common. Likewise me and the person who wrote that post. But I don’t relate to the position of “all AI should stop.”

I think there should be democratically accountable AI development. I’m interested in open source but the problem with it is that private corporations take advantage of it until they get big enough to try to lock out competitors. (See Google with Android) I would love to see an “open source” license which allows use by individuals and democratic entities, but forbids use by private enterprise.

It’s not going to. Saying all AI should stop is like saying “all gunpowder should stop”. Would everyone be better off if no one was using it? Maybe. But that’s not going to happen at this point, and will give you a strategic disadvantage if you unilaterally disarm.

And to be clear I’m not talking about using AI to write a screenplay or something creative, I mean like using it to write software, to optimize industrial processes etc.

If I’m someone living in Ukraine, I may not personally have military drones but they are working to my advantage. Am I concerned about elites controlling violent tools that average people don’t have access to? Yes. Would I take that over an immediate threat of dying in the trenches? Yes. I don’t think it’s hard to understand Ukraine’s line of thought here.

As soon as aliens take over they would all starve right? They’ve got to save some food for later.

Ok I only watched the first movie. But in the comics seems like it’s usually humans keeping them around so they can make super weapons, they don’t exist in a sustainable ecosystem.

Well Newsom is just the governor of California, so not like he has ultimate power. He’s also problematic in a lot of ways, but this one seems like a good move as far as it goes.

It doesn’t say they would only tax jan 6ers, it says any state residents who receive a payout

Sometimes you’ve got to fight fire with fire

I also use ublock origin. Worth it for me because of mobile app and Roku playback.

Isn’t it the video creator’s choice to include paid promotion? That’s not a Google enshittification problem.

Yeah what’s the complaint?

It’s true I’d rather see the same service be provided by some non monopoly rather than Google. But all in all I get to see a lot of fascinating content with ease.

Why should I be mad they have ads? (To be clear, I strongly dislike seeing ads, it’s why I’m paying.)

Suppose YouTube wasn’t part of Google and it was some mom and pop operation - they still need to make money to stay open right? They’re not doing this just for kicks. So they could charge membership or they could show ads. I’m opting for the membership route.

I pay for YouTube so I don’t see ads, I’m pretty happy with it.