Yep. The old ways are back in, basically. And the conveniences of the Internet mutated into their own monster in AI and broke all the promises information technology made.
I was just (shower) thinking to myself that humans must be all the chimps that couldn’t help but chase some random thing out of the jungle and into the plains/Savannah/desert and were lucky or smart enough to survive. All while the other chimps were happy to chill.
Yea, this “data at the edge” approach, not “on the wire” Is interesting to me and makes sense.
Basically regressing on the convenience/power of the internet because it just isn’t safe and easy anymore and for anything personal that isn’t a server -> many users, yoi basically ain’t gonna need it.
I mean … is the singularity a good thing? I’ve never delved into whatever discourse there is around the idea, but it seems strange the way it’s treated as a necessary good. Fanatical even.
Almost like it’s the only way to continue to feel ecstatic about technology the more one uses and builds it. So anyone unable to let go of the “magic” feeling needs to cling to the dream of the singularity when they could, you know, “touch grass” and accept being human.
But I wanted to highlight the possibility of an “automation” (AI, autopilot, robots etc) that are capable of responding in the flexible ways we value about our own minds. Because it can lead to an even greater exile from our world, and personally I think its likelihood is being dangerously dismissed and ignored.
Before any AI apocalypse scenario materialises, one in which truly intelligent automation works well could very well occur. And it would leave little to no room for human participation. A plane that doesn’t even have a cockpit, if you will. A car without a steering wheel. A tech stack that is just alien to humans. Yes, “ideally” we’d be much freer from drudgery and able to pursue happier lives. But there’d be a trade off I think, and no longer being true members of our own society seems to me the start of it.
Frankly, it may be the core of my anti-AI stance (in the short term) - that it will inevitably make technology inhospitable to humans, uninhabitable and incomprehensible too.
I read a few reactions from security types on the barrage of security issues that came out from AI firms, earlier this year. And the overall sentiment was to lean into using AI more to keep up with AI security discoveries. To go faster and faster and ride the AI more and more.
Which completely amounts to turning our tech over to AI and resigning as “supervisors” who won’t be able to navigate and understand the tech on their own anymore, not because of a lack of skills as many talk about, but simply because they didn’t build it and the process that did build it didn’t do it with humans in mind. Which then becomes a downward spiral with a positive feedback loop leading a mass of technology that just doesn’t need humans any more or is at least uninhabitable for us.
It wasn’t long ago that people lamented not being able to repair their own cars, and computers too. Old fashioned maybe, but I suspect it’s a value system worth evaluating rather seriously.
It’d probably help everyone if they considered how hard it is for them to get concessions even when they have levers of power through labour strikes and some form of direct involvement in the economy and government.
What happens you’re just a worthless leech? What happens when they’re not paying enough to sustain you? What will you do? Vote against them? How long will the vote be given to “the leeches”? And then you’ll protest? How long before a massive robot army is both unbeatable and disposable?
I don’t understand how more people aren’t talking more about what mass disenfranchisement broad UBI implies. To be simply exiled from society, not freed from it, seems a natural endpoint. Especially if it’s driven by literal human replacement machines.
I feel like the deeper truth highlighted here is that being pro-nuclear, or anti-anti-nuclear, is very much a “reddit” style opinion.
Whatever the actual truth is, that is. It seems to fall neatly into the “I know something and can make a ‘well actyooally’ argument about it” category without having expertise like being on top of the historical financial performance and context of the technology, about which I personally know nothing.
Yep, it’s that reality distortion field that really makes it special and creepy, not least because their greater wealth allows them to support the distorted sense of reality, while also likely demanding more of it so that they can fit in with their wealthy social class.
Reminds me of a shower thought I had a while ago: why aren’t more churches/temples basically groves in forests? Even in an urban environment, why not cultivate some grand trees as a little forested oasis?
You could still put covers against rain and lights, fires and heaters against the dark and cold. Statues, murals and structures too.
Yes, but there’s certainly a disconnect here between what school entrained us to believe and what “real life” cares about, which is maybe the point here.
Not a new idea, I know, but watching the world upend itself over some tech “progress” highlights this gulf, not to mention how much school scepticism was right, to some extent, all along.
Yep. The old ways are back in, basically. And the conveniences of the Internet mutated into their own monster in AI and broke all the promises information technology made.
Fucking awesome!
That makes sense! My shower thought was no more than a brain fart and was at most symbolic or allegorical about human nature.
I was just (shower) thinking to myself that humans must be all the chimps that couldn’t help but chase some random thing out of the jungle and into the plains/Savannah/desert and were lucky or smart enough to survive. All while the other chimps were happy to chill.
Yea, this “data at the edge” approach, not “on the wire” Is interesting to me and makes sense.
Basically regressing on the convenience/power of the internet because it just isn’t safe and easy anymore and for anything personal that isn’t a server -> many users, yoi basically ain’t gonna need it.
What does self hosting look like in a world full of malicious AI agents?
I’m thinking of this post/thread from Veronica explains, where she explains that her hosted services are accessible only locally because tbe security headache isn’t worth it: https://explains.social/@veronica/statuses/01KWJCGV27JVBHP21E2JNWDBFH
As someone who doesn’t self-host but could and would want to, the state of AI has basically scared me off.
Happy cake day!
I mean … is the singularity a good thing? I’ve never delved into whatever discourse there is around the idea, but it seems strange the way it’s treated as a necessary good. Fanatical even.
Almost like it’s the only way to continue to feel ecstatic about technology the more one uses and builds it. So anyone unable to let go of the “magic” feeling needs to cling to the dream of the singularity when they could, you know, “touch grass” and accept being human.
Thank you!!
I haven’t read the essay, just your extracts.
But I wanted to highlight the possibility of an “automation” (AI, autopilot, robots etc) that are capable of responding in the flexible ways we value about our own minds. Because it can lead to an even greater exile from our world, and personally I think its likelihood is being dangerously dismissed and ignored.
Before any AI apocalypse scenario materialises, one in which truly intelligent automation works well could very well occur. And it would leave little to no room for human participation. A plane that doesn’t even have a cockpit, if you will. A car without a steering wheel. A tech stack that is just alien to humans. Yes, “ideally” we’d be much freer from drudgery and able to pursue happier lives. But there’d be a trade off I think, and no longer being true members of our own society seems to me the start of it.
Thanks again for the essay!
Yea.
Frankly, it may be the core of my anti-AI stance (in the short term) - that it will inevitably make technology inhospitable to humans, uninhabitable and incomprehensible too.
I read a few reactions from security types on the barrage of security issues that came out from AI firms, earlier this year. And the overall sentiment was to lean into using AI more to keep up with AI security discoveries. To go faster and faster and ride the AI more and more.
Which completely amounts to turning our tech over to AI and resigning as “supervisors” who won’t be able to navigate and understand the tech on their own anymore, not because of a lack of skills as many talk about, but simply because they didn’t build it and the process that did build it didn’t do it with humans in mind. Which then becomes a downward spiral with a positive feedback loop leading a mass of technology that just doesn’t need humans any more or is at least uninhabitable for us.
It wasn’t long ago that people lamented not being able to repair their own cars, and computers too. Old fashioned maybe, but I suspect it’s a value system worth evaluating rather seriously.
All of them Jack, I think
Yea.
It’d probably help everyone if they considered how hard it is for them to get concessions even when they have levers of power through labour strikes and some form of direct involvement in the economy and government.
What happens you’re just a worthless leech? What happens when they’re not paying enough to sustain you? What will you do? Vote against them? How long will the vote be given to “the leeches”? And then you’ll protest? How long before a massive robot army is both unbeatable and disposable?
I don’t understand how more people aren’t talking more about what mass disenfranchisement broad UBI implies. To be simply exiled from society, not freed from it, seems a natural endpoint. Especially if it’s driven by literal human replacement machines.
If you don’t mind, could you to explain why exactly?
Is it a GPL3 thing? Or favouring their own BSD licences?
I feel like the deeper truth highlighted here is that being pro-nuclear, or anti-anti-nuclear, is very much a “reddit” style opinion.
Whatever the actual truth is, that is. It seems to fall neatly into the “I know something and can make a ‘well actyooally’ argument about it” category without having expertise like being on top of the historical financial performance and context of the technology, about which I personally know nothing.
Yep, it’s that reality distortion field that really makes it special and creepy, not least because their greater wealth allows them to support the distorted sense of reality, while also likely demanding more of it so that they can fit in with their wealthy social class.
Fuck me, turns out the capitalist individual actually fucking cares about their society! Who would have thought!
I hear you.
Wow … nice to see!
Reminds me of a shower thought I had a while ago: why aren’t more churches/temples basically groves in forests? Even in an urban environment, why not cultivate some grand trees as a little forested oasis?
You could still put covers against rain and lights, fires and heaters against the dark and cold. Statues, murals and structures too.
Dunno, maybe I just like trees a lot.
Yes, but there’s certainly a disconnect here between what school entrained us to believe and what “real life” cares about, which is maybe the point here.
Not a new idea, I know, but watching the world upend itself over some tech “progress” highlights this gulf, not to mention how much school scepticism was right, to some extent, all along.