I’ll be an early dissenter, but while I’m for unfettered capitalism to create growth, I don’t see AI as the saving grace the e/accers think it is. We should perhaps err on the side of a little more caution, especially if we are designing a system that has the capacity to outsmart us, and if married with quantum computing—all bets are off.
The rhythm of that Doricko kid mimics the other voices in the article. It’s not a death cult, but the idealism about AI and its ability to save us all, fix so many problems, etc., sounds like a lot of religious fervor to jump on the next big thing.
“The rhythm of that Doricko kid mimics the other voices in the article”.
Augustus Caesar Doricko sounds like a crack pot, in a Sam Bankman-Fried sort of way. For the ill-informed, cloud seeding has been around for decades. The problem is, if there is no moisture in the atmosphere, as is typical in the areas Mr. Doricko wants to “terraform”, it doesn’t work any better than planting a seed in dry soil. Nothing happens. Unless he can figure out a way to re-rout ocean currents, his mission statement will remain nothing more than another scam.
Well, then that's probably a no for you on investing in his startup. I don't think the seeding idea is a good one, ecologically speaking; climates are different around the world and in different reasons based on complex environmental factors.
My point was in reference to more of a cultish adherence to making the world a better place through tech.
I think you can safely relax a bit Rachael. Scam artists have been predicting the end of the world forever. Now we have killer nanobots “infinitely duplicating themselves until they consume all the biomass of the planet”. Oh my! They’d better hurry up and complete their consuming before the planet spontaneously combusts from “global warming” and burns everything to ash. It seems Al Gore and Greta Thunberg finally have some competition for the world “Chicken Little” title. Even their name (remember SBF’s “effective altruism” schtick?) suggests a lack of originality. I’m surprised their apocalyptic warnings aren’t a bit more dramatic, like human sacrifices. If, however they do prove prophetic, and some maniacal AI strain gets too smart for its britches, someone can always pull the plug (or battery).
If the end of the world does come, I fully intend to sit back and roast some s'mores in the flames from the nuclear blast furnace. It adds a certain flavor to the toasting process.
Let’s say we go slow. What will others do? Go slow as well? Probably not. I’d rather take my chances with mostly neutral AI being developed by random gen Z techies than definitely not neutral AI being developed in other nations. In addition to the good that AI will be doing it will also be fighting our wars.
I have read that cloud seeding in the States has lead to aluminum in snow in the Rockies. Apparently there are warnings in the area to not eat or melt and drink snow.
In life, there will always be progress, for better or worse. There is really nothing to resist. It's happening everywhere, all the time. If we do it, we are more likely to make it better. The military has been using predictive software for a while which was semi or fully autonomous. This is just a small further progression that we are more aware of because it is a consumer-oriented product.
It is not that simple. Nor should it be. Decisions should be made thoughtfully not because oh well so and so is doing it so I might as well too. My mother knew the response to that (juvenile) argument, something jumping off a bridge as I recall. And as a modern example some idiot in some education program thought that progress was needed in teaching kids to read so phonics was abandoned in favor of learning to read by osmosis. Now we have a generation of barely literate kids. Not all change is good. Not all progress is. Lastly I feel certain that very technologically advanced societies have existed on earth before; that technology lauded for the sake of technology creates societies that are no longer grounded, literally or physically and as a result they topple.
It does not surprise me that Washington has embraced the ignorant side of this debate. Not one bit.
Computers do exactly what they are programmed to do. If you program an AI to program itself, it will do so in exactly the way you tell it to program itself. Computers are not living beings. Unless they are programmed to preserve themselves and replicate (a rather silly notion for a machine that can have its parts replaced far more easily than a human can obtain an artificial heart) they will not operate in that manner.
It is the height of whatever hubris mankind embodied when it invented gods and made them man-like to forecast similar behavior from machines.
If we don't want computers killing people, then we should be careful about how we program them. We should be incredibly careful when we create war machines that run AI. Not out of worry that they will evolve like butterflies and sabre-toothed tigers, but that a software bug will have it use its weaponry in a manner the programmer didn't anticipate.
Instead, people seem to worry that their Ring doorbells will magically acquire machine guns (one-click shopping and all) and shoot up the neighborhood.
If the government tries to regulate AI, that will give countries like Russia, China and Iran access to software advances beyond our capabilities. We will be unable to defend ourselves. In time, all the brightest minds working on AI will start working for foreign companies.
It's people in government who act malevolently, not computers and AI.
If you pay attention to what the Chinese are doing with AI tools against the Uyghur population in western China, you'll see already the result of your last two paragraphs. The weakness of authoritarian regimes has always been they don't have enough manpower to watch everybody all the time. With AI, they do - and they are. Read the book Surveillance State by Josh Chin and Liza Lin. The problem with attempting to regulate AI is the same problem gun control has - it only affects those willing to be regulated. Rogue regimes, like rogue individuals, will ignore it.
Your points are valid and worthy of consideration. Might we also consider that AI will eventually be employed (as are guns and bombs) by relatively empowered entities (Hamas, Putin, Kim Jong Un) who cannot be relied upon to program their morally-neutral computers benevolently as well as by relatively less empowered lone wolf rouge hacker nihilists with mayhem in mind. So, while we are obliged for our own self-defense to press on with AI lest our enemies surpass and destroy us, we can not safely default to the aphorism "computers (or guns) don't kill people, people kill people. Nor can we attribute all malevolence to "people in government" which, no matter how dim and dysfunctional, are far from the only source of havoc in the world resulting from the malign application of any technology. It is not necessary to resort to an anthropomorphic concept of AI to respect the powerful potential for harm (as well as good) that it represents.
I think that's a given. But let's not forget that unfettered access to the combinations of technology required to create an unusual threat requires government support. And Hamas is the government of these territories as well as a proxy of Iran.
Since we know there are governments out there willing to resort to war in this form, an artificial government restriction makes us more vulnerable in the end.
There should be laws against violence, not laws against tools (like guns and AI) that can be used for violence or for safety or (in the case of AI) even for enormous good.
The former supports civilization. The latter suggests that Big Brother knows best after all.
I do not advocate for laws against either guns nor AI and think that reducing my points and concerns to that extreme fails to rebut the points. I do not believe that "the government" is the answer to all of our problems; however, consider the example of the advent of the internet (whose precursor and digital protocols were developed by DARPA, a government agency) three decades ago. The legislative governments (state and federal) took a laissez faire attitude towards it for two decades, during which time cities and states experienced an evisceration of their sales tax bases due to e-commerce; organized crime, pornography, misinformation, human trafficking and legion other ills proliferated; civil discourse was poisoned by social media, which also has wrecked a generation of children psychologically; thousands of small businesses that could not compete with Amazon et al were destroyed; the most successful of those platforms have become mass enablers of criminals fencing stolen merchandise online; and hundreds of millions of ordinary people get to lay awake at night worrying that their bank account or IRA will be sucked into Bitcoin by a hacker in Kazakhstan. AI has vastly more potential for disruption than the internet. Your suggestion that my points can be dismissed by characterizing them as reflecting an attitude that "Big Brother Knows Best" is just an insult to my conservatism. "Laws against violence" don't seem to be working so well lately in this extremely violent world of ours and how exactly are we to expect any law (crafted by the government by the way) to deter an evil-doer armed with a tool that thinks faster and better than any human?
My response is essentially an advocacy of narrowly tailoring laws to address specific crimes. The internet is merely a conduit for improved communication, just as the telephone replaced the telegraph and the telegraph replaced sending out a man on horseback (one if by land, two if by sea, three if by zoom chat room.
Progress means change. Change means adaptation. Not all change is good, but a business that relies on people getting into a car and driving to a crowded storefront where they see one one-hundredth of the choices they might want, then have to wait in line for ages for poor service... that's a business one can and should improve upon in this day and age.
Every example you give of crime can or is addressed by specific laws against theft, against exploiting children. Or perhaps just better parenting - some bad parents let their children stream TikTok all day long. Some let their children run wild in their neighborhood without technology. The common thread is that parents must accept responsibility for raising their children to be good citizens.
As for laws against violence not working... they work quite well. The very recent spike in violence is mostly attributable to DAs who refuse to prosecute serious crime. That has nothing to do with the internet or hackers in Kazakhstan.
I'm not trying to insult you, but I do not think a Luddite approach is going to do anything other than worsen the problems in America.
I have attempted from the outset to be respectful to you and your opinions. My courtesy has not been reciprocated so this will be my last reply to you. You reach readily for insults like "Luddite", an epithet that is ludicrous when applied to me: I have been lucky to spent a lifetime in the professional use of the newest of science and technology. I have joyfully embraced every new scientific/technological breakthrough in my profession, whether refinements of theoretical foundations or improved modalities to bring to bear upon the many significant human problems were mine to address. But in my world science and technology are highly scrutinized for their potential harm in an organized way that didn't always exist. We now are all better off for that scrutiny. Your ad hominem style of discourse lacks the substance and eloquence to dissuade me from my position that unfettered informational-technological change, no matter its upside, has also coarsened the world. If you believe it has not then you have my blessing in seeking a rewarding life for yourself trolling around the internet. Go ahead order some stolen stuff from Amazon, hit some porn sites, flame your fellow man in the comments section. It's all good bro! BTW the full quote from Orwell's "1984" is "Big Brother is watching you"; So who is watching us in 2023? Who is mining our data and watching every website we visit and geo-locating us? Is it the government bumblers or is it Google, Meta, Apple and the rest?
There's a difference between laws that prevent specific bad behaviors and the government stepping in to regulate the technology.
If we don't want GMAM and their friends tracking and selling our data, we should advocate for privacy laws. But what makes all of that Orwellian isn't the company behavior itself, it's when those companies so eagerly do the government's bidding.
There used to be legislation. I think it was called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. I believe it's still on the books. But since large companies so effectively curry favor with the government, it's never used.
We have good laws. We have laws against violence. We have laws against child trafficking. They are not enforced. Not only is Big Brother watching us, with the eager help of their friends in "the newest of science and technology", but Big Brother is no longer interested in our quality of life.
How you can trust government when it has failed us so badly is a mystery to me. If Luddite doesn't apply to you, how else would you define your desire to eliminate the technology rather than police the criminal behavior?
There are always those who are willing to press the red “Do Not Push” button just to see what happens. I did it many times when I was a reckless young entrepreneur learning the latest programming languages. I brought many computer systems to a dead stop, so I could learn the weaknesses and program fail safes. Down time was hours or a few days, not forever. This E/acc seems more reckless than pushing the red button.
How do you propose reigning in those who have no interest in regulation? I think you're conflating innovation and malevolence.
If, for example, in your explorations of your computer's environment, you came across access to your neighbor's utility controls, would you continue to "explore"? If so, that crosses a line that seems far outside the spirit of recklessness in pursuit of knowledge and suggests a criminal intent.
I am sure, when great innovators like Edison pushed their boundaries, others issued similar warnings. When Watson and Crick learned about the structure of DNA, which undoubtedly can be used for terrible weapons, what if that technology were regulated against and today's scientists could not develop vaccines and technologies that cure maladies that would otherwise kill millions?
Technology has fueled an unprecedented gain in quality of life. We see the associated gain in world population. All of this requires a constant flow of new technology. If we want to stop that flow, we have to be prepared to deal with an enormous change in how all of that balances. Which, of course, means a long period of war - something that was a constant in the world before the industrial age.
The destruction of humanity via AI won't happen via violence. It'll happen via an over-abundance of luxury, such that humans will basically stop doing anything but interacting with their AI lovers, AI video games/worlds, AI friends. You'll have no desire to be in the real world -- every experience can be done virtually, at a fraction of the cost and effort required. Drones will bring food and medication directly to your pod. No one will be dating, since AI lovers will be more compassionate and interesting. No one will have kids. The world will slowly blink away into non-existence.
Meanwhile, dutiful computer systems will perform automated geological surveys, set up automated mines, automatically build new pods and other structures. AI surgery bots will do perfect surgeries and keep people alive until they're 150 -- but all the people will do is stay plugged into virtual worlds. No one will be interested in working, and no work will be available anyways. In ~300 years, the last few humans will die off, old and alone, addicted to dopamine rushes delivered directly from their neuro-links. And when the last human dies, the automated system will continue for thousands more years, repairing itself and tending to fields of crops, keeping a constant stockpile of food no one will ever eat.
In 500 years, a small boat will sail forth from North Sentinel Island to India and the people will wonder at this strange society that's fallen.
I took that a different way - Zoomers have been raised in a cocoon of catastrophism since birth (global warming, racism, economic collapse, etc.). Good Lord, I hope they turn against it and think about how things can be made better, and not through more government/regulations/"equity".
(But I do agree that this kid doesn't know how much he doesn't know, as Timothy K. pointed out above regarding cloud seeding being an old idea)
I actually agree with your take I just took umbrage about the our entire life part. He is barely an adult. What life? And oh my stars does he have a high opinion of himself.
Thanks for this article. I think. Scary stuff. That 23 year old sounds mentally ill to me. Delusions of granduer and all that. And the talk about the stagnation of Apple, Meta, etc. while true fails to address that big old elephant of the damage done by those stagnant entities. Why should I believe these new "altruists" will do better? I heard no mention of ethics, just acceleration. As we should have learned from Sam Bankman-Fried identifying as an altruist does not make you one and in fact may be a sham to draw in the gullible. BTW I believe in technology and that our future is in the stars. I just want grown-ups in charge. Otherwise it is back to the stone age we go.
Yes, remember when we heard from all the SV wonders about how monetizing the internet was going to be so good for humanity? There is no stopping this now sadly.
That monetization of the internet has allowed you to read this in-depth article on a niche movement and comment on it from wherever you are in the world while I respond from the comfort of my home. That’s a better world than deciding to read only what The NY Times thinks is news.
Well Aaron I never said the monetization of the internet was 100 percent bad or negative did I? Of course I did not, I referred to the now billionaires distracting us from the negatives while moving forward full speed ahead without reflection on how we could optimize the commercial internet's pros and cons. Remember the geniuses telling us to "move fast and break things?" This was their mantra while they were becoming super rich and putting themselves out there as sage-like prophets. Many in SV thought that was so cool and hip until it wasn't. AI is not 100 percent bad or negative either Aaron, even if it is ultimately the means of our destruction. We will reap untold medical and other benefits from AI in the process. Everything in life is yin and yang Aaron, everything is balance.
Effective Altruism is a grift. SBF and FTX stole billions while defrauding investors and customers, transferring the wealth to their democrat cronies. No discussion of EA is complete without mention of the theft and criminality at the core of our elites and their puppets in DC: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/sequoia-ftx-214million-disaster
E/acc is about optimism and capitalistic growth that benefits all of mankind. Do we want that future or the dystopian decline found in SF, DC, and all of our demoralized cities?
I’m all for optimism and growth but, I’m concerned that this young e/accers lack wisdom or insight that an older person with more experience may provide. I’m not saying Zuckerberg or similar should be that voice but what young people just don’t have is the benefit of maturity, struggle, and patience.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
But, but ... The Beltway Boboes will NEVER let an industry get ahead of their ability to regulate it, control it, control others, and grow rich and powerful.
The hubris of the e/accers is breath taking. Take a moment to read the short story “The Machine Stops,” by E.M. Forster. Originally published in 1909. A utopian dream where humans live alone and all needs are provided by The Machine until the inevitable collapse when The Machine slowly but surely stops functioning. Actually a story about e/acc causing the extermination of most of the human race; except for the few that escape the machine. Not by purposely killing them, but due to the ultimate failure of the technology. Prescient? Free PDF copy from UC Davis at https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/Machine_stops.pdf
Interesting juxtaposition in FP between the idealistic altruists who want to do great things with AI and the masses marching in our streets shrieking paeans for murder and rapine, those lolling uselessly in their own feces and urine and the outright morlocks looting CVS stores and pummeling seniors into a pulp to steal a few crumpled dollars. Where will we end up?
Here is the achilles heel for the SF reformers. They are Democrats and will seek to reform inside the system keeping a lot of it, and not totally tossing it out. They are for the free market when it comes to their own enterprises, but not for it when it comes to limiting government.
Well, with all DUE respect, the e/accers in this piece sound like a collection of heavily breathing late adolescents. Concerning the "Thermodynamic Will of the Universe", Misters Jezos and Bayeslord might consider the 2nd Law from which we learn that entropy increases with all spontaneous processes. If ever there was a "Thermodynamic Will of the Universe" (which there wasn't and isn't) this is it.
As a chemical engineer I had to study (and understand!) thermodynamics in college. I don't remember thermodynamics having a will! Of course, it is a figurative expression. This article attempts to critique the idea, and links to the academic paper that originated it. I haven't read it all yet, but it seems to boil down to the idea that the universe naturally evolves to more complex states, so why don't we hurry it along? Or something like that!
I’m really glad that I am old! As uplifting and honest as The Free Press generally is, this horror story complete with virtual friends makes me want to pull up the covers and drift back to sleep.
I’m right there with you. I fear a day of reckoning is coming which will cull the herd, so to speak. Covid nightmare was just a preview! Glad I’ll be missing that particular bit of fun but feel for my grandkids.
AI is just another tool, like the airplane, the personal computer and the internet. It, like everything, can be used to enhance life or to destroy life. But the important verb there is 'used'. It is not alive. It is not self-aware, and it doesn't have any goals beyond what humans give it. Your story today on your writer's experiences with her AI 'boyfriend' demonstrates exactly why that is. It has been a long time since I have heard the younger generations (I'm 69) actually want to improve our lives instead of whining about our looming destruction, so I say GO, GO, GO to the e/acc's. May you take over the world and leave the doomsayers behind.
Why must our grand ideas be followed by manifestos, flags, and god complexes? As my favorite niece always says, “Humans are so silly.”
While it would suck to witness Doom, if that’s what the end result is… ultimately, I would prefer that in my old age I’m living in a world where we at least tried to live in a futuristic world like we see in movies. Sorry guys, but it’s simply too cool to pass up. If I’m old and we still have low bandwidth, (LA) summer power outages, and packages delivered at wrong addresses—lame.
Plus, it’s moving so quickly that the winning prediction will be nothing more than a lucky guess.
I lived in Silicon Valley for 25 years, and Silicon Valley no more has a soul than Wall Street. Silicon Valley is Wall Street with the pretense of having a soul.
I once jokingly told a Gen Z friend that I would trust her generation when they stopped eating Tide Pods. Now I feel like I will trust them when they go back to eating Tide Pods.
I’ll be an early dissenter, but while I’m for unfettered capitalism to create growth, I don’t see AI as the saving grace the e/accers think it is. We should perhaps err on the side of a little more caution, especially if we are designing a system that has the capacity to outsmart us, and if married with quantum computing—all bets are off.
The rhythm of that Doricko kid mimics the other voices in the article. It’s not a death cult, but the idealism about AI and its ability to save us all, fix so many problems, etc., sounds like a lot of religious fervor to jump on the next big thing.
“The rhythm of that Doricko kid mimics the other voices in the article”.
Augustus Caesar Doricko sounds like a crack pot, in a Sam Bankman-Fried sort of way. For the ill-informed, cloud seeding has been around for decades. The problem is, if there is no moisture in the atmosphere, as is typical in the areas Mr. Doricko wants to “terraform”, it doesn’t work any better than planting a seed in dry soil. Nothing happens. Unless he can figure out a way to re-rout ocean currents, his mission statement will remain nothing more than another scam.
Well, then that's probably a no for you on investing in his startup. I don't think the seeding idea is a good one, ecologically speaking; climates are different around the world and in different reasons based on complex environmental factors.
My point was in reference to more of a cultish adherence to making the world a better place through tech.
I think you can safely relax a bit Rachael. Scam artists have been predicting the end of the world forever. Now we have killer nanobots “infinitely duplicating themselves until they consume all the biomass of the planet”. Oh my! They’d better hurry up and complete their consuming before the planet spontaneously combusts from “global warming” and burns everything to ash. It seems Al Gore and Greta Thunberg finally have some competition for the world “Chicken Little” title. Even their name (remember SBF’s “effective altruism” schtick?) suggests a lack of originality. I’m surprised their apocalyptic warnings aren’t a bit more dramatic, like human sacrifices. If, however they do prove prophetic, and some maniacal AI strain gets too smart for its britches, someone can always pull the plug (or battery).
If the end of the world does come, I fully intend to sit back and roast some s'mores in the flames from the nuclear blast furnace. It adds a certain flavor to the toasting process.
Let’s say we go slow. What will others do? Go slow as well? Probably not. I’d rather take my chances with mostly neutral AI being developed by random gen Z techies than definitely not neutral AI being developed in other nations. In addition to the good that AI will be doing it will also be fighting our wars.
What you are saying is, "Resistance is futile".
Sorry - I echoed you before I read your comment!
Great minds ... 😆
Haha - did you see today’s article on rain in Dubai? Coincidence? I don’t know, but still pretty wild.
Hope you’re well - we often seem to comment on each other’s comments! -Tim
I have read that cloud seeding in the States has lead to aluminum in snow in the Rockies. Apparently there are warnings in the area to not eat or melt and drink snow.
In life, there will always be progress, for better or worse. There is really nothing to resist. It's happening everywhere, all the time. If we do it, we are more likely to make it better. The military has been using predictive software for a while which was semi or fully autonomous. This is just a small further progression that we are more aware of because it is a consumer-oriented product.
It is not that simple. Nor should it be. Decisions should be made thoughtfully not because oh well so and so is doing it so I might as well too. My mother knew the response to that (juvenile) argument, something jumping off a bridge as I recall. And as a modern example some idiot in some education program thought that progress was needed in teaching kids to read so phonics was abandoned in favor of learning to read by osmosis. Now we have a generation of barely literate kids. Not all change is good. Not all progress is. Lastly I feel certain that very technologically advanced societies have existed on earth before; that technology lauded for the sake of technology creates societies that are no longer grounded, literally or physically and as a result they topple.
Mark, it’s gonna be a both/and.
It's a valid point, and one worth considering in the AI race, if one draws a parallel to the nuclear arms race.
The brightest kids in MY generation were smoking dope and having unfettered sex! These new guys just don't sound like much fun.
On the other hand, when they grew up and took over universities, NGOs and government agencies all they accomplished was being greater dopes.
To each his own, and the consequences that are had with all decisions one makes about their life.
I say give San Francisco to the e/accers, along with "carte blanche" and let them run their experiment. THEN we decide!
I tend to agree. The problem is that China is developing AI as well, so... it’s a technology race
Yes, but I can’t imagine them becoming very innovative since they usually don’t want something to get out of their control.
It does not surprise me that Washington has embraced the ignorant side of this debate. Not one bit.
Computers do exactly what they are programmed to do. If you program an AI to program itself, it will do so in exactly the way you tell it to program itself. Computers are not living beings. Unless they are programmed to preserve themselves and replicate (a rather silly notion for a machine that can have its parts replaced far more easily than a human can obtain an artificial heart) they will not operate in that manner.
It is the height of whatever hubris mankind embodied when it invented gods and made them man-like to forecast similar behavior from machines.
If we don't want computers killing people, then we should be careful about how we program them. We should be incredibly careful when we create war machines that run AI. Not out of worry that they will evolve like butterflies and sabre-toothed tigers, but that a software bug will have it use its weaponry in a manner the programmer didn't anticipate.
Instead, people seem to worry that their Ring doorbells will magically acquire machine guns (one-click shopping and all) and shoot up the neighborhood.
If the government tries to regulate AI, that will give countries like Russia, China and Iran access to software advances beyond our capabilities. We will be unable to defend ourselves. In time, all the brightest minds working on AI will start working for foreign companies.
It's people in government who act malevolently, not computers and AI.
If you pay attention to what the Chinese are doing with AI tools against the Uyghur population in western China, you'll see already the result of your last two paragraphs. The weakness of authoritarian regimes has always been they don't have enough manpower to watch everybody all the time. With AI, they do - and they are. Read the book Surveillance State by Josh Chin and Liza Lin. The problem with attempting to regulate AI is the same problem gun control has - it only affects those willing to be regulated. Rogue regimes, like rogue individuals, will ignore it.
Your points are valid and worthy of consideration. Might we also consider that AI will eventually be employed (as are guns and bombs) by relatively empowered entities (Hamas, Putin, Kim Jong Un) who cannot be relied upon to program their morally-neutral computers benevolently as well as by relatively less empowered lone wolf rouge hacker nihilists with mayhem in mind. So, while we are obliged for our own self-defense to press on with AI lest our enemies surpass and destroy us, we can not safely default to the aphorism "computers (or guns) don't kill people, people kill people. Nor can we attribute all malevolence to "people in government" which, no matter how dim and dysfunctional, are far from the only source of havoc in the world resulting from the malign application of any technology. It is not necessary to resort to an anthropomorphic concept of AI to respect the powerful potential for harm (as well as good) that it represents.
I think that's a given. But let's not forget that unfettered access to the combinations of technology required to create an unusual threat requires government support. And Hamas is the government of these territories as well as a proxy of Iran.
Since we know there are governments out there willing to resort to war in this form, an artificial government restriction makes us more vulnerable in the end.
There should be laws against violence, not laws against tools (like guns and AI) that can be used for violence or for safety or (in the case of AI) even for enormous good.
The former supports civilization. The latter suggests that Big Brother knows best after all.
I do not advocate for laws against either guns nor AI and think that reducing my points and concerns to that extreme fails to rebut the points. I do not believe that "the government" is the answer to all of our problems; however, consider the example of the advent of the internet (whose precursor and digital protocols were developed by DARPA, a government agency) three decades ago. The legislative governments (state and federal) took a laissez faire attitude towards it for two decades, during which time cities and states experienced an evisceration of their sales tax bases due to e-commerce; organized crime, pornography, misinformation, human trafficking and legion other ills proliferated; civil discourse was poisoned by social media, which also has wrecked a generation of children psychologically; thousands of small businesses that could not compete with Amazon et al were destroyed; the most successful of those platforms have become mass enablers of criminals fencing stolen merchandise online; and hundreds of millions of ordinary people get to lay awake at night worrying that their bank account or IRA will be sucked into Bitcoin by a hacker in Kazakhstan. AI has vastly more potential for disruption than the internet. Your suggestion that my points can be dismissed by characterizing them as reflecting an attitude that "Big Brother Knows Best" is just an insult to my conservatism. "Laws against violence" don't seem to be working so well lately in this extremely violent world of ours and how exactly are we to expect any law (crafted by the government by the way) to deter an evil-doer armed with a tool that thinks faster and better than any human?
My response is essentially an advocacy of narrowly tailoring laws to address specific crimes. The internet is merely a conduit for improved communication, just as the telephone replaced the telegraph and the telegraph replaced sending out a man on horseback (one if by land, two if by sea, three if by zoom chat room.
Progress means change. Change means adaptation. Not all change is good, but a business that relies on people getting into a car and driving to a crowded storefront where they see one one-hundredth of the choices they might want, then have to wait in line for ages for poor service... that's a business one can and should improve upon in this day and age.
Every example you give of crime can or is addressed by specific laws against theft, against exploiting children. Or perhaps just better parenting - some bad parents let their children stream TikTok all day long. Some let their children run wild in their neighborhood without technology. The common thread is that parents must accept responsibility for raising their children to be good citizens.
As for laws against violence not working... they work quite well. The very recent spike in violence is mostly attributable to DAs who refuse to prosecute serious crime. That has nothing to do with the internet or hackers in Kazakhstan.
I'm not trying to insult you, but I do not think a Luddite approach is going to do anything other than worsen the problems in America.
I have attempted from the outset to be respectful to you and your opinions. My courtesy has not been reciprocated so this will be my last reply to you. You reach readily for insults like "Luddite", an epithet that is ludicrous when applied to me: I have been lucky to spent a lifetime in the professional use of the newest of science and technology. I have joyfully embraced every new scientific/technological breakthrough in my profession, whether refinements of theoretical foundations or improved modalities to bring to bear upon the many significant human problems were mine to address. But in my world science and technology are highly scrutinized for their potential harm in an organized way that didn't always exist. We now are all better off for that scrutiny. Your ad hominem style of discourse lacks the substance and eloquence to dissuade me from my position that unfettered informational-technological change, no matter its upside, has also coarsened the world. If you believe it has not then you have my blessing in seeking a rewarding life for yourself trolling around the internet. Go ahead order some stolen stuff from Amazon, hit some porn sites, flame your fellow man in the comments section. It's all good bro! BTW the full quote from Orwell's "1984" is "Big Brother is watching you"; So who is watching us in 2023? Who is mining our data and watching every website we visit and geo-locating us? Is it the government bumblers or is it Google, Meta, Apple and the rest?
There's a difference between laws that prevent specific bad behaviors and the government stepping in to regulate the technology.
If we don't want GMAM and their friends tracking and selling our data, we should advocate for privacy laws. But what makes all of that Orwellian isn't the company behavior itself, it's when those companies so eagerly do the government's bidding.
There used to be legislation. I think it was called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. I believe it's still on the books. But since large companies so effectively curry favor with the government, it's never used.
We have good laws. We have laws against violence. We have laws against child trafficking. They are not enforced. Not only is Big Brother watching us, with the eager help of their friends in "the newest of science and technology", but Big Brother is no longer interested in our quality of life.
How you can trust government when it has failed us so badly is a mystery to me. If Luddite doesn't apply to you, how else would you define your desire to eliminate the technology rather than police the criminal behavior?
"It does not surprise me that Washington has embraced the ignorant side of this debate. Not one bit"
Yea, because they want to keep it all to themselves, because as you say, "it's people in government who act malevolently, not computers and AI".
There are always those who are willing to press the red “Do Not Push” button just to see what happens. I did it many times when I was a reckless young entrepreneur learning the latest programming languages. I brought many computer systems to a dead stop, so I could learn the weaknesses and program fail safes. Down time was hours or a few days, not forever. This E/acc seems more reckless than pushing the red button.
How do you propose reigning in those who have no interest in regulation? I think you're conflating innovation and malevolence.
If, for example, in your explorations of your computer's environment, you came across access to your neighbor's utility controls, would you continue to "explore"? If so, that crosses a line that seems far outside the spirit of recklessness in pursuit of knowledge and suggests a criminal intent.
I am sure, when great innovators like Edison pushed their boundaries, others issued similar warnings. When Watson and Crick learned about the structure of DNA, which undoubtedly can be used for terrible weapons, what if that technology were regulated against and today's scientists could not develop vaccines and technologies that cure maladies that would otherwise kill millions?
Technology has fueled an unprecedented gain in quality of life. We see the associated gain in world population. All of this requires a constant flow of new technology. If we want to stop that flow, we have to be prepared to deal with an enormous change in how all of that balances. Which, of course, means a long period of war - something that was a constant in the world before the industrial age.
The destruction of humanity via AI won't happen via violence. It'll happen via an over-abundance of luxury, such that humans will basically stop doing anything but interacting with their AI lovers, AI video games/worlds, AI friends. You'll have no desire to be in the real world -- every experience can be done virtually, at a fraction of the cost and effort required. Drones will bring food and medication directly to your pod. No one will be dating, since AI lovers will be more compassionate and interesting. No one will have kids. The world will slowly blink away into non-existence.
Meanwhile, dutiful computer systems will perform automated geological surveys, set up automated mines, automatically build new pods and other structures. AI surgery bots will do perfect surgeries and keep people alive until they're 150 -- but all the people will do is stay plugged into virtual worlds. No one will be interested in working, and no work will be available anyways. In ~300 years, the last few humans will die off, old and alone, addicted to dopamine rushes delivered directly from their neuro-links. And when the last human dies, the automated system will continue for thousands more years, repairing itself and tending to fields of crops, keeping a constant stockpile of food no one will ever eat.
In 500 years, a small boat will sail forth from North Sentinel Island to India and the people will wonder at this strange society that's fallen.
Isaac Asimov portrayed this in his novel, "Under The Naked Sun", written in 1958.
"Wall-E"
You should write that into a novel. It sounds sad, but interesting.
The Great Filter that prevents species from reaching the stars isn't war, but social media and AI addiction. "Wall-E" was strangely prophetic.
Sounds like The Reality Bug by D.J. MacHale to me
Sounds better than our world now. Send in the AI lovers.
". . . so sick of because we spent our whole life in it." From a 23 year old. Lord help us restore humility to this world.
I took that a different way - Zoomers have been raised in a cocoon of catastrophism since birth (global warming, racism, economic collapse, etc.). Good Lord, I hope they turn against it and think about how things can be made better, and not through more government/regulations/"equity".
(But I do agree that this kid doesn't know how much he doesn't know, as Timothy K. pointed out above regarding cloud seeding being an old idea)
I actually agree with your take I just took umbrage about the our entire life part. He is barely an adult. What life? And oh my stars does he have a high opinion of himself.
Thanks for this article. I think. Scary stuff. That 23 year old sounds mentally ill to me. Delusions of granduer and all that. And the talk about the stagnation of Apple, Meta, etc. while true fails to address that big old elephant of the damage done by those stagnant entities. Why should I believe these new "altruists" will do better? I heard no mention of ethics, just acceleration. As we should have learned from Sam Bankman-Fried identifying as an altruist does not make you one and in fact may be a sham to draw in the gullible. BTW I believe in technology and that our future is in the stars. I just want grown-ups in charge. Otherwise it is back to the stone age we go.
Yes, remember when we heard from all the SV wonders about how monetizing the internet was going to be so good for humanity? There is no stopping this now sadly.
That monetization of the internet has allowed you to read this in-depth article on a niche movement and comment on it from wherever you are in the world while I respond from the comfort of my home. That’s a better world than deciding to read only what The NY Times thinks is news.
It’s amazing the things people take for granted.
Well Aaron I never said the monetization of the internet was 100 percent bad or negative did I? Of course I did not, I referred to the now billionaires distracting us from the negatives while moving forward full speed ahead without reflection on how we could optimize the commercial internet's pros and cons. Remember the geniuses telling us to "move fast and break things?" This was their mantra while they were becoming super rich and putting themselves out there as sage-like prophets. Many in SV thought that was so cool and hip until it wasn't. AI is not 100 percent bad or negative either Aaron, even if it is ultimately the means of our destruction. We will reap untold medical and other benefits from AI in the process. Everything in life is yin and yang Aaron, everything is balance.
Effective Altruism is a grift. SBF and FTX stole billions while defrauding investors and customers, transferring the wealth to their democrat cronies. No discussion of EA is complete without mention of the theft and criminality at the core of our elites and their puppets in DC: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/sequoia-ftx-214million-disaster
E/acc is about optimism and capitalistic growth that benefits all of mankind. Do we want that future or the dystopian decline found in SF, DC, and all of our demoralized cities?
I’m all for optimism and growth but, I’m concerned that this young e/accers lack wisdom or insight that an older person with more experience may provide. I’m not saying Zuckerberg or similar should be that voice but what young people just don’t have is the benefit of maturity, struggle, and patience.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
lol- THAT’S why the world is so screwed up! So many unreasonable people!
But, but ... The Beltway Boboes will NEVER let an industry get ahead of their ability to regulate it, control it, control others, and grow rich and powerful.
Egomaniacal psychopaths and sociopaths
The hubris of the e/accers is breath taking. Take a moment to read the short story “The Machine Stops,” by E.M. Forster. Originally published in 1909. A utopian dream where humans live alone and all needs are provided by The Machine until the inevitable collapse when The Machine slowly but surely stops functioning. Actually a story about e/acc causing the extermination of most of the human race; except for the few that escape the machine. Not by purposely killing them, but due to the ultimate failure of the technology. Prescient? Free PDF copy from UC Davis at https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/Machine_stops.pdf
A sure way to guarantee that an idea will spread is for government to oppose it!
Interesting juxtaposition in FP between the idealistic altruists who want to do great things with AI and the masses marching in our streets shrieking paeans for murder and rapine, those lolling uselessly in their own feces and urine and the outright morlocks looting CVS stores and pummeling seniors into a pulp to steal a few crumpled dollars. Where will we end up?
Here is the achilles heel for the SF reformers. They are Democrats and will seek to reform inside the system keeping a lot of it, and not totally tossing it out. They are for the free market when it comes to their own enterprises, but not for it when it comes to limiting government.
Well, with all DUE respect, the e/accers in this piece sound like a collection of heavily breathing late adolescents. Concerning the "Thermodynamic Will of the Universe", Misters Jezos and Bayeslord might consider the 2nd Law from which we learn that entropy increases with all spontaneous processes. If ever there was a "Thermodynamic Will of the Universe" (which there wasn't and isn't) this is it.
As a chemical engineer I had to study (and understand!) thermodynamics in college. I don't remember thermodynamics having a will! Of course, it is a figurative expression. This article attempts to critique the idea, and links to the academic paper that originated it. I haven't read it all yet, but it seems to boil down to the idea that the universe naturally evolves to more complex states, so why don't we hurry it along? Or something like that!
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CwEsWktvi2iSysdon/the-predictive-power-of-dissipative-adaptation
I’m really glad that I am old! As uplifting and honest as The Free Press generally is, this horror story complete with virtual friends makes me want to pull up the covers and drift back to sleep.
I’m right there with you. I fear a day of reckoning is coming which will cull the herd, so to speak. Covid nightmare was just a preview! Glad I’ll be missing that particular bit of fun but feel for my grandkids.
AI is just another tool, like the airplane, the personal computer and the internet. It, like everything, can be used to enhance life or to destroy life. But the important verb there is 'used'. It is not alive. It is not self-aware, and it doesn't have any goals beyond what humans give it. Your story today on your writer's experiences with her AI 'boyfriend' demonstrates exactly why that is. It has been a long time since I have heard the younger generations (I'm 69) actually want to improve our lives instead of whining about our looming destruction, so I say GO, GO, GO to the e/acc's. May you take over the world and leave the doomsayers behind.
Why must our grand ideas be followed by manifestos, flags, and god complexes? As my favorite niece always says, “Humans are so silly.”
While it would suck to witness Doom, if that’s what the end result is… ultimately, I would prefer that in my old age I’m living in a world where we at least tried to live in a futuristic world like we see in movies. Sorry guys, but it’s simply too cool to pass up. If I’m old and we still have low bandwidth, (LA) summer power outages, and packages delivered at wrong addresses—lame.
Plus, it’s moving so quickly that the winning prediction will be nothing more than a lucky guess.
I lived in Silicon Valley for 25 years, and Silicon Valley no more has a soul than Wall Street. Silicon Valley is Wall Street with the pretense of having a soul.
I once jokingly told a Gen Z friend that I would trust her generation when they stopped eating Tide Pods. Now I feel like I will trust them when they go back to eating Tide Pods.