"The point of AI is to permit the wealthy to access the benefits of the talented, while preventing the talented from accessing the benefits of wealth." [Paraphrased, I didn't remember who originally said it.]
AI accelerated it, is all. The wealthy will kill as many people as they can should they ever develop the means to live forever, which is their end goal: immortality. Their healthcare (having money to go wherever and pay whatever) is preventative while everyone else's is reactionary, and only if some middleman is onboard with the doctor's medical prognosis. Only those able to serve them with their labor are desirable. Everyone not useful to them should go off and die. This is why they fight healthcare for all so hard.
She's not just saying that the wealthy are trying to seize control — she also discusses how they're leveraging the rhetoric of inevitable AI in order to build the foundations for future control. Significantly, she identifies this attempt as being driven by anxiety that the wealthy feel about their future control, and discusses strategies for resisting that.
What she's saying is far from obvious; I've seen so many anti-AI, anti-capitalist folk unwittingly perpetuating the rhetorical agenda of the wealthy by accepting the notion that a society ran by super advanced AI is inevitable.
Call bullshit on what, sorry? I'm not clear on whether you're calling bullshit on the professor in the article, or the wealthy assholes who the professor is critiquing
Cottom cuts to the heart of an issue that both AI doomers and AI boosters seem to take for granted: that an AI-dominated future isn’t inevitable.
Given the development plateau tech companies seem to be running into these days, a future built on large language models (LLMs) is far from a lock. (Consider, for example, the fact that after a very recent December update, ChatGPT couldn’t even generate an accurate alphabet poster for preschoolers.)
...
Cottom points to the historical record — for example, the fact that chattel slavery was at one time seen as a preordained fact of life, a myth spread by the wealthiest members of that bygone age.
ChatGPT couldn’t even generate an accurate alphabet poster for preschoolers.)
And it's already trained on the whole of human knowledge. That's what gets me about LLM's. If it's already trained on the entirety of human knowledge, and still can't accurately complete these basic tasks, how do these companies intend to fulfill their extravagant promises?
It's trained on human writing, not knowledge. It has no actual understanding of meaning or logical connections, just an impressive store of knowledge about language patterns and phrases that occur in the context of the prompt and the rest of the answer. It's very good at sounding human, and that's one hell of an achievement.
But its lack of actual knowledge becomes apparent in things like the alphabet poster example or a history professor asking a simple question and getting a complicated answer that sounds like a student trying to seem like they read the books in question but misses the one-sentence-answer that someone who actually knows the books would give. Source, the example I cited being about a third into the actual article
If the best it can do is sound like a student trying to bullshit their way through, then that's probably the most accurate description: It has been trained to sound knowledgeable, but it's actually just a really good bullshitter.
Again, don't get me wrong, as a language processing and generation tool, I think it's an amazing demonstration of what is possible now. I just don't like seeing people ascribe any technical understanding to a hyperintelligent parrot.
Gen AI and the people behind it are profoundly anti-human. They want everyone dead, diminished, obsolete, and defeated. Refuse AI features anywhere and everywhere they are placed.
From 1996-2007 Windows users already told the world that 'AI Assistants' can just fuck off.
It was called Clippy, and everyone hated it!
We will crush you just like we crushed Clippy.
34 Comments
aramis87@fedia.io · 161 pts · 239d
"The point of AI is to permit the wealthy to access the benefits of the talented, while preventing the talented from accessing the benefits of wealth." [Paraphrased, I didn't remember who originally said it.]
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 30 pts · 238d
If that wasn't the case even before Ai, ai just made it more blatant.
regedit@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 238d
AI accelerated it, is all. The wealthy will kill as many people as they can should they ever develop the means to live forever, which is their end goal: immortality. Their healthcare (having money to go wherever and pay whatever) is preventative while everyone else's is reactionary, and only if some middleman is onboard with the doctor's medical prognosis. Only those able to serve them with their labor are desirable. Everyone not useful to them should go off and die. This is why they fight healthcare for all so hard.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 238d
Aren't these the same people that keep saying we need to have more babies, though?
regedit@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 238d
Those are the billionaires that want to enslave us in their theocratic breeding camps. But only the ones with good health.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 238d
they know, billionaires cant survive without security, or servents.
minorkeys@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 238d
Swap "talented' with 'labour' and 'AI' with 'force' that's been our history since civilization started, at least.
saejima@ani.social · 48 pts · 239d
I thought they were going to use AI to share their wealth /s
LupertEverett@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 238d
Trickle-down AInomy!
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 238d
So not only are they pissing on us and lacking the decency to call it rain, but now they're teaching machines to do it, too?!
allriledup@piefed.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 238d
Hawke@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 239d
Thanks, Professor Obvious
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net · 46 pts · 238d
She's not just saying that the wealthy are trying to seize control — she also discusses how they're leveraging the rhetoric of inevitable AI in order to build the foundations for future control. Significantly, she identifies this attempt as being driven by anxiety that the wealthy feel about their future control, and discusses strategies for resisting that.
What she's saying is far from obvious; I've seen so many anti-AI, anti-capitalist folk unwittingly perpetuating the rhetorical agenda of the wealthy by accepting the notion that a society ran by super advanced AI is inevitable.
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 238d
The wealthy feel anxiety about their future control? Why would they need to feel that?
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 17 pts · 238d
Because they ran out of things to distract the masses, plus they need the plebs in order to maintain their little fiefdoms.
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 238d
Yeah I call bullshit on that.
Automation is inevitable, doesn’t mean decision making will be.
Having fully automated factory that churns out 100 cars a day is not dystopian if you can have people able to configure that number.
The dystopian part is having only a few with “admin access”.
AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 238d
Call bullshit on what, sorry? I'm not clear on whether you're calling bullshit on the professor in the article, or the wealthy assholes who the professor is critiquing
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 238d
Dystopian is when they finish the fully automated kill bots that kill you if you don't get to work on time.
Avicenna@programming.dev · 46 pts · 238d
More like wealthy will use anything possible to seize control of everything.
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 40 pts · 238d
I like this comparison
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 238d
And it's already trained on the whole of human knowledge. That's what gets me about LLM's. If it's already trained on the entirety of human knowledge, and still can't accurately complete these basic tasks, how do these companies intend to fulfill their extravagant promises?
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 25 pts · 238d
They don't. It's a scam.
luciferofastora@feddit.org · 17 pts · 238d
It's trained on human writing, not knowledge. It has no actual understanding of meaning or logical connections, just an impressive store of knowledge about language patterns and phrases that occur in the context of the prompt and the rest of the answer. It's very good at sounding human, and that's one hell of an achievement.
But its lack of actual knowledge becomes apparent in things like the alphabet poster example or a history professor asking a simple question and getting a complicated answer that sounds like a student trying to seem like they read the books in question but misses the one-sentence-answer that someone who actually knows the books would give. Source, the example I cited being about a third into the actual article
If the best it can do is sound like a student trying to bullshit their way through, then that's probably the most accurate description: It has been trained to sound knowledgeable, but it's actually just a really good bullshitter.
Again, don't get me wrong, as a language processing and generation tool, I think it's an amazing demonstration of what is possible now. I just don't like seeing people ascribe any technical understanding to a hyperintelligent parrot.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 238d
So just like their creators.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 7 pts · 238d
BUILD MORE DATACENTRES!
VampirePenguin@lemmy.world · 38 pts · 238d
Gen AI and the people behind it are profoundly anti-human. They want everyone dead, diminished, obsolete, and defeated. Refuse AI features anywhere and everywhere they are placed.
aarRJaay@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 238d
Hahaha. The wealthy are using THEIR WEALTH to seize control of everything. Always have, always will.
SippyCup@lemmy.ml · 27 pts · 238d
I have a plan guys.
Well. Plans.
Sektor@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 238d
People don't rebel untill their kids start dying from hunger. Rebellion is expensive.
SippyCup@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 238d
You mean we gotta wait another 10 years?!
20cello@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 239d
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 238d
No shit.
Zier@fedia.io · 9 pts · 238d
From 1996-2007 Windows users already told the world that 'AI Assistants' can just fuck off. It was called Clippy, and everyone hated it! We will crush you just like we crushed Clippy.
hexagonwin@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 238d
No! It was Clippit! /s
Zier@fedia.io · 2 pts · 238d
That's correct, Clippit was it's official name, but the World renamed him Clippy.