zlacker

[return to "My AI skeptic friends are all nuts"]
1. habosa+VM[view] [source] 2025-06-03 03:51:46
>>tablet+(OP)
I’m an AI skeptic. I’m probably wrong. This article makes me feel kinda wrong. But I desperately want to be right.

Why? Because if I’m not right then I am convinced that AI is going to be a force for evil. It will power scams on an unimaginable scale. It will destabilize labor at a speed that will make the Industrial Revolution seem like a gentle breeze. It will concentrate immense power and wealth in the hands of people who I don’t trust. And it will do all of this while consuming truly shocking amounts of energy.

Not only do I think these things will happen, I think the Altmans of the world would eagerly agree that they will happen. They just think it will be interesting / profitable for them. It won’t be for us.

And we, the engineers, are in a unique position. Unlike people in any other industry, we can affect the trajectory of AI. My skepticism (and unwillingness to aid in the advancement of AI) might slow things down a billionth of a percent. Maybe if there are more of me, things will slow down enough that we can find some sort of effective safeguards on this stuff before it’s out of hand.

So I’ll keep being skeptical, until it’s over.

◧◩
2. honest+aR[view] [source] 2025-06-03 04:39:49
>>habosa+VM
I'm in a nearly identical boat as you.

I'm tired. I'm tired of developers/techies not realizing their active role in creating a net negative in the world. And acting like they are powerless and blameless for it. My past self is not innocent in this; but I'm actively trying to make progress as I make a concerted effort to challenge people to think about it whenever I can.

After countless of times that the tech industry (and developers specifically) have gone from taking an interesting technical challenge that quickly require some sort of ethical or moral tradeoff which ends up absolutely shaping the fabric of society for the worse.

Creating powerful search engines to feed information to all who want it; but we'll need to violate your privacy in an irreversible way to feed the engine. Connecting the world with social media; while stealing your information and mass exposing you to malicious manipulation. Hard problems to solve without the ethical tradeoff? Sure. But every other technical challenge was also hard and solved, why can't we also focus on the social problems?

I'm tired of the word "progress" being used without a qualifier of what kind of progress and at the cost of what. Technical progress at the cost of societal regression is still seen as progress. And I'm just tired of it.

Every time that "AI skeptics" are brought up as a topic; the focus is entirely on the technical challenges. They never mention the "skeptics" that are considered that because they aren't skeptical of what AI is and could be capable. I'm skeptical if the tradeoffs being made will benefit society overall; or just a few. Because at literally every previous turn for as long as I've been alive; the impact is a net negative to the total population, without developer questioning their role in it.

I don't have an answer for how to solve this. I don't have an answer on how to stop the incoming shift in destroying countless lives. But I'd like developers to start being honest in their active role in not just accepting this new status quo; but proactively pushing us us in a regressive manner. And our power to push back on this coming wave.

◧◩◪
3. 6LLvve+9U[view] [source] 2025-06-03 05:17:31
>>honest+aR
Unfortunately Capitalism unhindered by regulation is what we wanted, and Capitalism unhindered by regulation is what we have. We, in the western world, were in the privileged position of having a choice, and we chose individual profit over the communal good. I'm not entirely sure it could have been any other way outside of books given the fact we're essentially animals.
◧◩◪◨
4. gtsop+0W[view] [source] 2025-06-03 05:32:27
>>6LLvve+9U
> Unfortunately Capitalism unhindered by regulation is what we wanted

No "we" don't want it. And those who do want it, let them go live in the early industrial England whete the lack of regulation degenerated masses.

Also, for some reason people still portray capitalism as being something completelky different with or without regulation, it's like saying a man is completelly different in a swimming swit and a costume.

> We, in the western world, were in the privileged position of having a choice, and we chose individual profit over the communal good

Again, "we" did not have a gathering a choose anything. Unless you have records of that zoom session.

> given the fact we're essentially animals.

This is a reductionist statement that doesn't get anywhere. Yes we are animals but we are more than that, similar to being quarks but also more than quarks.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. zwnow+UY[view] [source] 2025-06-03 06:02:55
>>gtsop+0W
Yes, "we" had the choice. Now nobody can afford homes and would ruin their life if they actually went ahead to demonstrate against the system for an extended period of time. We still have the choice, but nobody is willing to sacrifice their own wellbeing because its easier to live with the minimum, while we shoot billionaires to space.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. astran+e41[view] [source] 2025-06-03 06:54:25
>>zwnow+UY
65% of households can own homes.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RSAHORUSQ156S

(This is somewhat but not entirely tautological.)

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. zwnow+t71[view] [source] 2025-06-03 07:31:30
>>astran+e41
I'm European and I am not going to spend 80% of my income on a house that I'd have to pay off until im 75.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. astran+cW7[view] [source] 2025-06-05 17:10:19
>>zwnow+t71
What does that have to do with the US homeownership rate?

Anyway, that's strictly better than renting the same house for the same rent because you can sell it. The downside of homeownership is extra expenses like repairs are now your problem.

Oh, and you don't get fixed-term mortgages like Americans do I guess.

[go to top]