Most of these idealistic pieces about AI seem to come from senior, established or wealthy people who aren't very exposed to the labor market. In that view, the question of AI and its transformation is almost philosophical like this piece.
It's more a question of survival if you're labor though. It's very transformative tech but it's coming at a time when the scales are heavily tilted in favor of capital over labor, the government is the most corrupt its ever been and AI is going to make that much more extreme. It doesn't matter how amazing the technology is if all the benefits are going to accrue to the same few people who already have everything and destroy everyone else's bargaining power.
Most people who oppose AI don’t oppose it because it’s so good it can replace us. They oppose it because, in their own words, they think it’s hype and it doesn’t work. The first step is to collectively agree that yes, AI is powerful and it can replace us at work. Then we can speak about how to protect livelihood. How does one even have a discussion when the other side doesn’t even believe in the capabilities of AI?
Edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted because there are replies literally taking the exact position that I'm saying is more prevalent.
I 'oppose' Ai for exactly the reasons parent mentions, seems like most common folks over long term will lose much more than they could ever gain from it. Societal loss by definition, on massive scale.
Don't reduce opposition to something you like to some primitive irrational luddites, thats cheap and doesn't represent reality.
>“AI is overhyped or less useful than claimed” was substantially more prevalent than “AI is genuinely capable and will take people’s jobs.” That held across two random samples of recent HN comments.
To steel-man your position, it is true that Bernie Sanders also opposes AI because it can cause automation. And that my bubble in tech might be biased because it consists of a certain kind of cynical person to think of everything as hype.
I wouldn't take that as a given. We don't know how AI will play out or how it will transform our lives. We could look to the industrial revolution to make a prediction, but the political, social and technological conditions today are hard to compare with those of Victorian England.
What AI lacks, I think, is a positive vision. The narrative is dictated by a small Silicon Valley subculture that unfortunately also happens to be a doomsday cult, and it is amplified by a media landscape hungry for the next clickbait headline.
By contrast, people in China seem a lot more relaxed and optimistic about AI. There are worries there too, but not to the same extent as in the West.
It would be interesting to compare the sentiment about AI with sentiment about computers in the 1950s. I think it reflects the stress of precarious employment more than anything else.
"AI is not as good as it is hyped up to be" and "AI is 'good enough' for the overlords to replace some amount of workers, or at least to leverage into depressing their wages significantly and permanently" are not mutually exclusive claims. You don't have to buy the hype to agree that it is dangerous.
A chimp with a gun is not dangerous because of how good a shot he is.
For me it's more that it doesn't matter whether it works or not, because funneling that wealth into those hands is reason enough to stop it in either case.
It certainly works for software, but we may be hitting diminishing returns on software. You may argue it's been a social net negative for a decade.
There is a bit of a goomba fallacy going on, not everyone who is anti-AI is against it for the same reason. But from my own experience, I find people who are against it for reasons of it devaluing their labor also tend to take the view that it doesn't really work, but this latter half tends to be a bit of motivated reasoning (in the general trend that if you are against something you will be more inclined to believe every argument that it is bad even if some of those arguments are pretty weak).
I'm not opposing AI per se since I'm using it, but I'm not blind to the danger and I actually do believe we will be worse than better with it in the long term. Anyway both opinions are right: I think that AI is massively overhyped, and is worse than the AI overlord pretends, but it's still good enough to massively affect the employment, especially with the overhype. I also believe that the privatisation of all human knowledge and culture by a handful of companies is very bad. And finally, the day they make an AI able to reason ( or even before if it happens that enough data is enough to replace reasoning for most tasks) is the day 99.99% of humanity will be considered as useless
It solved the navier stokes millennium prize problem without any reasoning? I could maybe believe it if it was just something like deep blue searching in axiom space with lean with some simple heuristics, but in this case the formalization came after as a separate step.
The version that you use in your browser is not capable of this though
It's important to remember that "AI" is a pretty big spectrum right now. The cutting edge is not exactly available to consumers like us, and it probably never will actually be
> Most people who oppose AI don’t oppose it because it’s so good it can replace us. They oppose it because, in their own words, they think it’s hype and it doesn’t work.
It's the opposite - they claim it's bad because they are afraid of being replaced. That's why absurd claims about stochastic parrot or plateau get repeated so much. It's pure copium.
Why should we all need to agree that 'ai can replace us' when 'us' can mean such different things to different people: someone pushing out content on TikTok has a lower bar for accuracy than someone signing off on documents to be submitted for review by a court. I think that's the origin of a lot of discrepancy between viewpoints on AI that gets in the way of talking about the benefits and harms that we can each identify and framing the discussion around how those are changing when these tools are used. There is no inevitability about AI everywhere - we have the agency to decide when it's right to use it and when it's wrong.
I think this is how society and politics works, there are a lot of people at different levels of understanding and different opinions all having parallel conversations. We don't need to have these conversations in serial order.
I can see the capital machine is sprinting at full force to create AI products for and replace labor in every industry, so the people who think it's hype now will soon see AI enter their workplace and understand its true capability. Even many reputed programmers said AI was overhyped say 6 months ago and one after another have changed their minds. I feel like there's also a large element of people saying its bad publicly BECAUSE they actually do understand its capabilities and fear being replaced, but they would rather say its bad to try to slow its adoption or as a kind of defense.
The understanding of AI's capabilities will diffuse naturally over time, although of course its worthwhile working on informing people there as well. Bill Gates recent interview with Ezra Klein was sort of on the same topic, where he says no one outside the industry understands its capabilities and that's why he's trying to use his platform to inform people about it.
As a matter of coalition building, all we have to do is agree that AI is being rolled out recklessly without any consideration for the consequences and apply pressure accordingly.
zaptheimpaler · · focus · HN ↗
It's more a question of survival if you're labor though. It's very transformative tech but it's coming at a time when the scales are heavily tilted in favor of capital over labor, the government is the most corrupt its ever been and AI is going to make that much more extreme. It doesn't matter how amazing the technology is if all the benefits are going to accrue to the same few people who already have everything and destroy everyone else's bargaining power.
simianwords · · focus · HN ↗
Edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted because there are replies literally taking the exact position that I'm saying is more prevalent.
kakacik · · focus · HN ↗
Don't reduce opposition to something you like to some primitive irrational luddites, thats cheap and doesn't represent reality.
simianwords · · focus · HN ↗
I asked ChatGPT to sample comments in HN without bias and find out which mode of opposition is more popular. Here's what it said
<a href="https://chatgpt.com/share/6abf5e0e-c45c-83eb-a3f6-b676b08f13f2" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/share/6abf5e0e-c45c-83eb-a3f6-b676b08f13...
>“AI is overhyped or less useful than claimed” was substantially more prevalent than “AI is genuinely capable and will take people’s jobs.” That held across two random samples of recent HN comments.
To steel-man your position, it is true that Bernie Sanders also opposes AI because it can cause automation. And that my bubble in tech might be biased because it consists of a certain kind of cynical person to think of everything as hype.
plastic-enjoyer · · focus · HN ↗
What AI lacks, I think, is a positive vision. The narrative is dictated by a small Silicon Valley subculture that unfortunately also happens to be a doomsday cult, and it is amplified by a media landscape hungry for the next clickbait headline.
By contrast, people in China seem a lot more relaxed and optimistic about AI. There are worries there too, but not to the same extent as in the West.
js8 · · focus · HN ↗
wartywhoa23 · · focus · HN ↗
People in China also seem relaxed and optimistic about being slaves to the digital panopticon.
plastic-enjoyer · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
wartywhoa23 · · focus · HN ↗
wsve · · focus · HN ↗
kombookcha · · focus · HN ↗
A chimp with a gun is not dangerous because of how good a shot he is.
alfiedotwtf · · focus · HN ↗
bojan · · focus · HN ↗
This was maybe true a year ago, but is certainly not true any more.
The laments these days almost always begin with the assertion that the AI does work.
Mostly it's about funneling even more wealth into the hands of the richest and the incredible environmental penalty.
BrenBarn · · focus · HN ↗
wartywhoa23 · · focus · HN ↗
simianwords · · focus · HN ↗
Its very Marxist (or Marx adjacent), though Marx himself would agree that technology is not neutral and it determines progress.
Ambolia · · focus · HN ↗
pjmlp · · focus · HN ↗
Thus it is already good enough for many companies.
rcxdude · · focus · HN ↗
poulpy123 · · focus · HN ↗
cma · · focus · HN ↗
bluefirebrand · · focus · HN ↗
It's important to remember that "AI" is a pretty big spectrum right now. The cutting edge is not exactly available to consumers like us, and it probably never will actually be
azan_ · · focus · HN ↗
It's the opposite - they claim it's bad because they are afraid of being replaced. That's why absurd claims about stochastic parrot or plateau get repeated so much. It's pure copium.
MrToadMan · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
zaptheimpaler · · focus · HN ↗
I can see the capital machine is sprinting at full force to create AI products for and replace labor in every industry, so the people who think it's hype now will soon see AI enter their workplace and understand its true capability. Even many reputed programmers said AI was overhyped say 6 months ago and one after another have changed their minds. I feel like there's also a large element of people saying its bad publicly BECAUSE they actually do understand its capabilities and fear being replaced, but they would rather say its bad to try to slow its adoption or as a kind of defense.
The understanding of AI's capabilities will diffuse naturally over time, although of course its worthwhile working on informing people there as well. Bill Gates recent interview with Ezra Klein was sort of on the same topic, where he says no one outside the industry understands its capabilities and that's why he's trying to use his platform to inform people about it.
As a matter of coalition building, all we have to do is agree that AI is being rolled out recklessly without any consideration for the consequences and apply pressure accordingly.