Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Tinker's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Sami Juvonen

@remenca @tinker I’m honestly curious. How do you think large language models, or AI, is going to bring about a future without work? What are the steps from here to automated luxury space communism? Or any other definition of a future where humans can just chill?

Do you own OpenAI? Say they do create a human level intelligence. What then? Why would they share the profit and productivity with you, if you’re just one of 8 billion nobodies?

What about doctors, nurses, plumbers, sanitation workers? Or is it only knowledge workers who “get to” be out of a job? What kind of political and economic system are you talking about?

21 June at 14:07 | Wall-to-wall | Open on infosec.exchange
62 comments
Remença

@sjuvonen @tinker

Very good comment that serves as motivation for my main point, which expressed in polite terms would something like THE PROBLEM IS NOT AI THE PROBLEM IS F*CKING CAPITALISM. As you accurately describe, what incentive has Sam Altman to share his AI, there is it none. The solution is eliminating Sam Altman and all their ilk. In other words, getting rid of capitalism would solve all of this problems.

21 June at 14:14 | Open on mastodont.cat
Sami Juvonen
Remença
Remença

@sjuvonen @tinker

Oh, I see you have a good job and you are probably happy living in capitalism, I understand it now.

21 June at 15:04 | Open on mastodont.cat
Tinker ☀️

@remenca @sjuvonen - Hey, easy on the ad hominem attacks.

21 June at 15:08 | Open on infosec.exchange
Remença

@tinker @sjuvonen

It is not an ad-hominem (or at least not entirely), I am just implying that he might be having a conflict of interests here.

21 June at 15:20 | Open on mastodont.cat
Sami Juvonen
Remença

@sjuvonen @tinker

Therefore I do not understand why you seem to criticize my answer of "what we need to do is to get rid of capitalists"

21 June at 15:19 | Open on mastodont.cat
Sami Juvonen replied to Remença

@remenca @tinker You didn’t answer any of my questions with your “smash capitalism!” response.

Current AI tech is capitalism distilled, so I don’t understand how you think it is going to free you from toil, or capitalism.

21 June at 15:33 | Open on infosec.exchange
DMTea replied to Sami

@sjuvonen @remenca @tinker nuclear power and nuclear medicine, which both save an incredible number of lives, are here because the tech started as a weapon of mass death.

Nobody wants mass death. But the science was good and matured into something very useful.

AI can do just that if it’s not strangled by capitalism along the way. Thats why it’s important to point to good applications while criticizing theft and energy use. We can do both.

21 June at 17:04 | Open on mas.to
Remença replied to DMTea

@DMTea @sjuvonen @tinker

I totally agree with you what means that I must have expressed myself horribly.

21 June at 17:06 | Open on mastodont.cat
DMTea replied to Remença

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker it’s okay- I wasn’t very patient with my reply, so sorry if I misunderstood. If you agree, then I have no problem with you or your post. I hope wherever you are, you have a good day :)

21 June at 17:12 | Open on mas.to
Remença replied to DMTea

@DMTea @sjuvonen @tinker

Don't apologize, it is not your fault, it is really my English :) I normally engage in debates in internet that are often beyond my level and from time to time it just happens that I do not explain myself correctly, but it is a good practice anyway.

Have a nice weekend. Greetings from Barcelona.

21 June at 17:15 | Open on mastodont.cat
Remença replied to Sami

@sjuvonen @tinker

That is because it is in capitalist hands, which is my entire point. We only need to seize it, like any other means of production, and socialize it's benefits. For instance, if you are an artist and you work has been used for training an AI, you should perceive the proportional part of whatever it would have been paid to generate an image with that AI.

21 June at 17:05 | Open on mastodont.cat
Remença replied to Remença

@sjuvonen @tinker

Finally, if we theorize on what would happening AI would reach parity with humans, we could just put AI to do all the work while we could spend our days doing whatever we enjoy, be it drawing or being at the bar.

21 June at 17:06 | Open on mastodont.cat
Sami Juvonen replied to Remença

@remenca @tinker You would be OK with enslaving human level intelligences?

21 June at 17:13 | Open on infosec.exchange
Remença replied to Sami

@sjuvonen @tinker

I would be ok with a AI that makes the work I do not want to do.

21 June at 17:17 | Open on mastodont.cat
Sami Juvonen replied to Remença

@remenca @tinker You better be careful what you wish for. You wish to be made redundant by an AI.

When you dig down, there appear to be two kinds of AI boosters (who are not shareholders in a hot company).

One group wants slaves.

One group wants to build a god and become its priesthood.

The common thread is that both enforce and encode a strict hierarchy in society.

21 June at 17:32 | Open on infosec.exchange
Remença replied to Sami

@sjuvonen @tinker I guess that a third one uses false dichotomies to win discussions, because I see another option which is: the AI are socialized and the profits produced are distributed among the people.

21 June at 19:11 | Open on mastodont.cat
http :verified: replied to Remença

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker That is exactly what will not happen. The exact same ("being able to relax and let the machines do the work") was predicted when steam engines and later electricity came up. And look at us now. Even more work and those things you can use the machines for are expected from you anyway, even if you don't need to spend many hours of your day washing clothes by hand or plowing a field with an ox. But yes, also AI will increase our overall productivity to a new level that will be expected from everyone. And you will still have no time to relax, but hopefully a slightly better life.

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker That is exactly what will not happen. The exact same ("being able to relax and let the machines do the work") was predicted when steam engines and later electricity came up. And look at us now. Even more work and those things you can use the machines for are expected from you anyway, even if you don't need to spend many hours of your day washing clothes by hand or plowing a field with an ox. But yes, also AI will increase our overall productivity to a new level that will...

22 June at 6:47 | Open on infosec.exchange
Remença replied to http

@http @sjuvonen @tinker

I totally agree. Actually, this was my point all the time. But with single catch. You failed to mention why this will and has happened. And the reason is because those technological improvements have been always in hands of the rich. It is not a problem of technology itself, it is a problem of who owns it. It is a political problem. Therefore, it makes no sense to blame AI for it. It is like blaming laundry machines for the loss of jobs of the launderers.

22 June at 8:37 | Open on mastodont.cat
http :verified: replied to Remença

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker I fail to see the political thing in it. We all have electricity and laundry machines now and profit from cheap food, not just "the rich". And we cannot relax and let the machines do most of our work; it's just that our work has changed to most of us being no longer farmers. Same I expect for AI. I have no idea where AI will be most successful, but if it can produce "better art" or "more secure coders" (both not the case now, by far) or whatever, then these jobs will be replaced and we will do even harder work on things AI cannot do.

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker I fail to see the political thing in it. We all have electricity and laundry machines now and profit from cheap food, not just "the rich". And we cannot relax and let the machines do most of our work; it's just that our work has changed to most of us being no longer farmers. Same I expect for AI. I have no idea where AI will be most successful, but if it can produce "better art" or "more secure coders" (both not the case now, by far) or whatever, then these jobs will be...

22 June at 8:51 | Open on infosec.exchange
Remença replied to http

@http @sjuvonen @tinker

I'm tempted to reply but think it will be better if you reach the conclusion by yourself, so I will only ask: You say that if AI takes over our jobs we will end doing the more menial tasks that AI cannot do. But those task must have been being done now anyway, no? So what will change?

22 June at 9:09 | Open on mastodont.cat
http :verified: replied to Remença

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker New kind of jobs and especially services came out of electrification. I don't expect that AI will take only the mental part and we end up with currently existing jobs of being hairdressers and waiters, but instead new services will emerge. 200 years ago, nobody could imagine a world with most jobs being not a farmer or craftsman.

22 June at 9:25 | Open on infosec.exchange
Remença replied to http

@http @sjuvonen @tinker

I'm not a native speaker and sometimes I'm unable to convey what I meant. My question was more to point that those menial jobs, like farmer or waiter, that cannot be automatized with AI (at least in its present incarnation) are already being fulfilled by humans, so it does not matter how much AI we add to society, those jobs will still to be done all the same. Nothing will change in that regard.

22 June at 9:29 | Open on mastodont.cat
Remença replied to http

@http @sjuvonen @tinker

Also, your statement of "we al have electricity and we all profit from cheap food" is not true in almost the entire planet and in around 30% of USA I think, but let's leave that aside for the moment being.

22 June at 9:12 | Open on mastodont.cat
http :verified: replied to Remença

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker If you look at the industrialization, this helped everyone worldwide and extreme poverty levels have sunken to historic lows. So yes, this indeed helped everyone.

22 June at 9:27 | Open on infosec.exchange
Remença replied to http

@http @sjuvonen @tinker

No, this is not true. When industrialization is paired with capitalism it results in that the capitalist take over everything and the rest get poorer.

sciencedirect.com/science/arti

22 June at 9:31 | Open on mastodont.cat
http :verified: replied to Remença

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker The charts on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ shows what I meant. Your article (colonialism, capitalism) might be true, but is a different topic. Yes, when everyone is a farmer and can care for theirselves, there is almost no extreme poverty. Too off-topic to discuss further though.

22 June at 9:45 | Open on infosec.exchange
Mx Verda replied to Remença

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker because that isn’t a plan, it’s an end-goal or ideal outcome.

21 June at 16:11 | Open on lgbtqia.space
Remença replied to Mx

@MxVerda @sjuvonen @tinker

It is a solution, which is what was asked. Another entire matter is how we get there, but even that I think that if we were only able to move to a less predatory capitalism like the one of the 60's if would be probably sufficient.

21 June at 17:12 | Open on mastodont.cat
Mx Verda replied to Remença

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker
“how do I improve my life?” “Escape poverty.”
“Uh, ok, how do I do that?” “Get more money.”

…

We remove the rich people, by moving to a less predatory capitalism. Alright.
How do we move to a less predatory capitalism? It might seem like I’m being pedantic, but people need clear, distinct tasks before they can track progress towards a goal.

I don’t need micromanaging bs about 2:43 pm next Thursday, but “big goal” from “chunks of that goal” from “portioned out segments of those chunks” go a long way towards engaging people with making it happen. Even destructive criticism is still helpful as it at least highlights a problem (badly) in how others will perceive it.

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker
“how do I improve my life?” “Escape poverty.”
“Uh, ok, how do I do that?” “Get more money.”

…

We remove the rich people, by moving to a less predatory capitalism. Alright.
How do we move to a less predatory capitalism? It might seem like I’m being pedantic, but people need clear, distinct tasks before they can track progress towards a goal.

21 June at 18:26 | Open on lgbtqia.space
Remença replied to Mx

@MxVerda @sjuvonen @tinker

I think that your demands of greater clarity are fair, but replacing capitalism with something else is something very complicated, so my answer will be unavoidably incomplete and flawed.

Removing the rich people is something that has been attempted in the past and in many occasions succeeded. The secret I'd say is to have at least part of the military in your side. 1917 revolution, Paris commune, Burkina Faso, etc...all share this trait.

22 June at 8:02 | Open on mastodont.cat
Remença replied to Remença

@MxVerda @sjuvonen @tinker

The tricky part seems to be twofold. First you need to avoid other powers that are friendly to the rich you have removed that will try do destroy you. This has also happened in failed revolutions like in Germany, Spain or the rest of the springtime of peoples. We could even consider the Napoleonic wars against the French revolution an instance of this. The only solution I see to this is again having the support of the military.

22 June at 8:12 | Open on mastodont.cat
Remença replied to Remença

@MxVerda @sjuvonen @tinker

Finally, if you have not been destroyed by your capitalist enemies, the only problem is how to avoid becoming a capitalist yourself after you gain power. This is what in my understanding led to the USSR demise with the apparition of the Nomenklatura or the capitalist "communism" from China. Still, it can be argued that at least those systems ended being softer versions of capitalism that the ones that replaced, so it was not all in vain, but still.

22 June at 8:15 | Open on mastodont.cat
Remença replied to Remença

@MxVerda @sjuvonen @tinker

Applying this to the current situation I think that a more or less clear picture arises. The military is split in two parts, one is the military industrial complex and the other is the cannon fodder that are extremely brainwashed with maga stuff in the bottom. Some years ago the brainwashing worked because USA was the most advanced country, but this seems to be ending due to the climate change, resource depletion and the apparition of emerging powers like the brics.

22 June at 8:21 | Open on mastodont.cat
Remença replied to Remença

@MxVerda @sjuvonen @tinker

So far they have managed to keep the cannon fodder fooled by blaming minorities and woke people for everything. But this will not work forever, simply because the real causes of the American decline are not those, and they will run out of minorities to blame. What will happen when this happens and the bottom military realize they have been tricked? I don't know, but it could open an opportunity like the Kornilov affair where the military change sides.

22 June at 8:31 | Open on mastodont.cat
Remença replied to Remença

@MxVerda @sjuvonen @tinker

So in my opinion, considering how powerful the propaganda machine is, the only thing we can do is just wait until the whole thing comes breaking down. And try to educate all the maga bigots - especially the ones in the army - until they realize they are just poor proletariat like us. Other than that I don't know.

It is said Lenin once said that any society is only two missed meals from revolution. We are getting there.

22 June at 8:35 | Open on mastodont.cat
Mx Verda replied to Remença

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker I will say that as a military brat, I think you’re vastly underestimating the massive contingent of nerds and other people who are / could be aware but need health insurance etc. Can’t evaluate the other stuff though

22 June at 8:49 | Open on lgbtqia.space
DMTea

@remenca @sjuvonen @tinker I guess since I exist in this system I didn’t ask for, and made the best of it, it means I can’t suggest that we use a better system? Or point out the incredible problems in this one?

Thanks I’m cured!

21 June at 16:59 | Open on mas.to
Remença

@DMTea @sjuvonen @tinker
I'm sorry mate, but English is not my first language and I'm afraid I expressed myself poorly. What I meant is that the reluctance of admitting my point expressed in his "oh, that's simple" is probably due to a conflict of interest with his current status. Anyway, he expressed that this is not the case, so that's it.

21 June at 17:01 | Open on mastodont.cat
Donnodubus

@sjuvonen @remenca @tinker LLMs are conceptually incapable of delivering on their promises and the hopes people have been fooled to put in them.

They can't solve basic issues like "hallucinations" because they are just not designed to actually know or understand anything. They are a fundamentally useless parlor trick.

21 June at 16:48 | Open on mas.to
Remença

@donnodubus @sjuvonen @tinker

That's bullshit, LLMs of sufficient size paired with enough data are universal approximators, which mean that conceptually it is possible. The only catch is the cost and that we do not know if we have enough data. But conceptually I do not know why a machine should be unable to surpass any human in any intellectual task.

21 June at 17:09 | Open on mastodont.cat
Remença

@donnodubus @sjuvonen @tinker

And they can and are currently solving the hallucination problem. As a matter of fact they have managed to get like 70% hallucinations on the benchmarks with the latest techniques, I can find the paper for you if you want to read it. How much of that improvement will be preserved in real life I dont know, but they are fixing the problem, unlike you state.

21 June at 17:11 | Open on mastodont.cat
Donnodubus

@remenca @sjuvonen I didn't say a machine could never match human intelligence, I said an LLM can't.

An LLM has no intelligence.

The simple fact of what it is and how it works means it will never stop "hallucinating," no matter how much processing power or data you throw at it.

21 June at 19:54 | Open on mas.to
Remença

@donnodubus @sjuvonen

This is mathematically incorrect and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what universal approximation means.

21 June at 20:14 | Open on mastodont.cat
Donnodubus

@remenca All an LLM does is resynthesize content from its training set that corresponds to words in the query it receives.

It understands nothing. It does no reasoning. It can't even use a calculator or look things up in a database, which much simpler and lower powered machines are able to do.

LLMs are incapable of intelligence BY DESIGN. They are literally not AI at all:

link.springer.com/article/10.1

21 June at 20:25 | Open on mas.to
Remença

@donnodubus

I am sorry mate, but this article all it does is just to frame the problem of hallucinations (which is being solved as we speak) as some interpretation of some guy about what is "bullshit". It does not talk about scaling laws, nor approximation, nor pac nor nothing. Please, do not embarass yourself citing articles you do not understand.

21 June at 21:36 | Open on mastodont.cat
Donnodubus replied to Remença

@remenca LLM's don't do any reasoning in the first place, so what they do can't be scaled up into "intelligence".

Pretty simple!

21 June at 21:40 | Open on mas.to
Kenneth Freeman :linux: :tor:

@sjuvonen
Along these lines I highly recommend Four Futures: Life After Capitalism by Peter Frase, because you've touched on two of them, perhaps three.
librarything.com/work/16092483
@remenca @tinker

21 June at 18:36 | Open on social.linux.pizza
Go Up