wantd2B1ofthestrokes

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Because of the implication

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mostly agree with this. But I can imagine saying basically any system minus x core feature will go to shit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think you can say that’s immoral. I’m not sure you can say it will destroy the whole system or that this is an inevitability of any capitalist system.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (15 children)

What are some examples of capitalism destroying itself?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Effective altruism is something that sounds good in principle, and I still think is good in general, though can kind of run out of control.

Sam Bankman Fried was someone who at least claimed to follow this philosophy. The issue being that you can talk yourself into doing bad things (fraud) in the name or earning money that you would then donate much of.

And more generally get into doing “long term” or “big picture” good while also doing a lot of harm. But hey the ends justify the means.

Again, I think the principle of being a lot more calculated in how we do philanthropy is a huge good thing. But the EA movement has had some missteps and probably needs to be reigned in a bit.

Funnily enough Wiki quotes Altman as one of the critics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don’t think it’s necessarily true that if we listen to “doomers” we get sensible policy. And it’s probably more likely we get regulatory capture.

But there does exist a sensible middle ground.

I actually think they are correct to bring up the potential upside as something we should consider more in the moral calculus. But the of course it’s taken to a silly extreme.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

You named a bunch of people and companies who are not the subject of the article

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

I mean, I think it’s a little different in that there’s tangible AI products that millions of people are already using?

I have my own doubts about how the current architectures scale towards “general intelligence”, but seems like a very real breakthrough that is already producing at a significant level.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (7 children)

I’m not a proponent of this mindset but this seems like an obvious mischaracterization of the argument

My biggest issues is that it seems to exist only in direct response to “doomers” as they love to say. And are maybe right to criticize, but having the whole thing just being a counter extreme doesn’t work either. And there’s lot of hand waving about technology and history and markets correcting themselves.

But I’ve never gotten the impression that it’s just a cynical “I don’t care if AI fucks everyone as long as I make money.”

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

Never going to happen. They’ve been going the total opposite direction for a long time

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

For sure. Part of me would want to take a sort of principled stand and not fuck with anything meta. But if I can follow people on threads from Mastadon, that would be pretty nice, and I think that integration would lend Mastadon and federation in general some legitimacy to the normies (for lack of a better word).

view more: next ›