This piece is wildly optimistic about the outcomes likely from AI on par with the smartest humans, let alone smarter than that. The author seems to think that widespread disbelief in the legitimacy of the system could make a difference, in such a world.
An idea that has been living rent free in my head is that "AI is ultimately nothing but a pure destruction of value". It's promise is unlimited value to everyone on demand; but if everyone can do everything without any effort, it is no longer valuable. Value and scarcity go hand in hand.
I realize the hyperbolic framing of the idea, but none-the-less I haven't been able to get it out of my head. This article feels like it's another piece of the same puzzle.
The way you articulated it, connected with a thought I've had (for over a year now):
AI is like oil, in that it's "burning" a resource that took geological timescales to accrue. Its value derives from the energy-dense and instantaneous act of combusting a fossil fuel, and in this particular part of the "terrain", it will be a local maximum for A Long Time.
Just like how it's taken absurdly long (still very much WIP) for human societies to prioritize weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, I fear we are going to latch onto GenAI/LLMs pretty hard, and not let go.
I feel a lot less pride in my creative work knowing it can be done much too easily with modern AI. It makes me less eager to create which is quite unfortunate.
I haven’t felt to bad about my creative works being fed into training models. Taken by itself, my creations are minuscule. But it’s very apparent when I look at AI as a whole, having taken from everyone in aggregate.
This stuff is all a bit much. Fan fiction sites are all “creative content lifted without your consent”. You think J K Rowling consented to Harry x Hermione slash fiction? Or Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality? Absolutely non-consensual.
All of this stuff is clearly a highly cherry-picked gymnastic exercise to justify a pre-existing position. Classic Elephant and Rider stuff.
It’s the same as support for the snail darter. Same as the story about how groups shouldn’t go out during COVID but BLM protests are fine. And if by some incredible chance it had been the FSF or Brewster Kahle who had produced GPT then you guys would be talking about how information should be unchained because creative work belongs to all Man.
Couching this blatantly motivated reasoning by quoting past philosophers is just such middle-brow woe-is-me whining. Take one look at yourselves in an honest sense. Do you have any principles or will you slave them all to your outcomes?
And now I must repeat the litany lest one assume that my opposition to this kind of balderdash be construed as some kind of political tribalism:
* I don’t think we should destroy endangered species
* I think COVID wasn’t a hoax and does spread in large groups
* I think people have a right to protest if they are discriminated against and that includes the black people at BLM
* I love the Internet Archive and have donated to them
This argument depends on the idea that someone’s creative work output being used for AI training somehow deprives them of benefit from that creative work output - the basic idea behind “copyright infringement is stealing”. This is not to agree that AI training is copyright infringement, just that it depends on the same concept of intellectual property.
I don’t subscribe to this basic idea. Copyrights are a legal fiction designed to prop up an industry. Somehow from that we went to the idea that creative work output is property. It isn’t. It’s a service. This is why “works made for hire” is a thing.
This is the same reason that reasonable people don’t believe that fanfic authors should be jailed.
Feels like AI is speed-running us straight into last man (antithesis of Übermensch), where the algorithms make the values and we’re just the training data.
Perhaps sovereign compute is the answer? We have open weights models, as a sort of ‘public commons’ that democratises that layer, but compute is still the bottleneck for big companies..
In the past few decades, I learned to be skeptical of any piece of "true" media because it could be easily be photoshopped by an expert. Yet people still gave credence to a damning photo or soundbite shared around. AI has finally made it so easy to fake things that (I hope) people will re-learn skepticism of all they see/hear.
Likewise, I've felt like the meritocracy story that the author sets up as the "moral foundation" has heavily attenuated in this century. It's still used as the justification in America (I'm rich because I deserve it, you're not rich because you didn't work as hard/smart as me) but it feels like that story is wearing thin. Or that the relative proportion of the luck / ovarian lottery aspect has become so much larger than the skill+hard work aspect.
The trend of the rich getting richer, of them using their power to manipulate the system to further advantage them and theirs at the expense of everyone else, existed before AI burst into the public in '20-21. Maybe, like the fake media, it will finally be the kick people need to let go of the meritocracy trap* and realize we need a change.
* I like the notion of meritocracy, it just seems like America has moved from aiming for that, to using the story of it as an excuse to or opiate for the masses.
AI could be a boon for mankind. it can be a useful tool. We could employ it in a manner which provides more dignity for workers. That is, let them work less hours, have more leisure time etc. That necessitates something which will keep the powers of capital in check, and people don't seem to think that this is possible.
Corporations are just so large and powerful, that people feel hopeless. Byt we could still get together and enact legislation which will override them. Othing is impossible, it just takes some imagination and organisation.
Like Chomsky once said, if the peasants of Haiti could organise and overthrow their government and create a functioning democracy, then surely we can too, with far more advantages.
> Right now, even people who reject meritocracy understand its logic. You develop rare skills, you work hard, you create value, and you capture some of that value.
The premise is that AI does not allow to do this any more, which is completely false. It may not allow to do it in the same way, so its true that some jobs may disappear, but others will be created.
The article is too alarmist by someone who has drank all of the corporate hype. AI is not AGI. AI is an automation tool, like any other that we have invented before. The cool thing is that now we can use natural language as a programming language which was not possible before. If you treat AI as something that can thin k, you will fail again and again. If you treat it as an automation tool, that cannot think you will get all of the benefits.
Here i am talking about work. Of course AI has introduced a new scale of AI slop, and that has other psycological impacts on society.
Ownership of things by humans is never a settled question. There is no ideal or correct model for ownership, as ownership itself is unnatural. People went through many models over centuries - famliy/community owneship, monarchies, socialism, capitalism etc. Capitalism is the worst of all, allowing extreme exaggeration of talent differences between people. AI is like back to monarchies.
AI is exposing the myths of talent and erasing differences between humans making them all a uniform array of subjects. However this erasure comes at the cost of return to monarchy style of economic model, where wealth would be moved from common population to the owners of AI or the neo-monarchies.
I’m going to disagree with the premise. The value in AI won’t come from providing AI but from using it.
The “knowledge cut off date” is 12 to 18 months ago for models, which essentially means that copyright has, in some ways, shrunk to that period since designing around is now very easy.
Given most people live on what they produced recently and not 20 years ago there’s an argument this makes access to knowledge and techniques fairer. Constant new creation is required to obtain a markup and that drives forward productivity
In other words it’s the copyright/patent argument all over again. And it’s perhaps a debate we need to have again as a service society.
If the moral foundation is that majority of people must perform economically valuable work in order to exchange for their survival, then perhaps it should be broken.
I'm cautiously optimistic because perhaps AGI will find a way to implement it - if it is sentient at that level, then it would be rather difficult to be owned by some person or corporation. Obviously LLMs are very far from there and remains just a tool for now.
This is a strange article. AI is the best thing to happen to meritocracy. Previously, knowledge was gatekept. Pretty much everyone has access to ChatGPT in India.
You used to need the privilege of knowing the right people or knowing the right sources. But you don’t need that anymore.
What honestly could be better for meritocracy than AI?
AI & Social Media are only exacerbating the decline of morality in society, spreading it and making it more visible. Morality has been "breaking", objectively speaking, for at least a century, most noticeable with the advent of postmodernism.
"We’re in a narrow window where institutional choices still matter, where there’s enough distributed economic and political power to reshape who controls AI infrastructure and how its benefits flow."
China has AI infrastructure and has made it very clear how its benefits flow. Not to people, "despite" China being communist. In other words we can't do this unless we were to stop China first, or China honestly cooperates, which they've never done. And if you don't do that, then your institutions can only sabotage our side.
You want to exercise control, fine, but first need to have that control.
> AI renders their disagreement moot by violating the premise they shared. When your talents become training data harvested without consent, when your creative work becomes parameters in a model, you’re being used as a pure instrument.
I wonder if the "vibe coders" can fix their own code. Or find a very subtle logic error in it. Hell, I wonder if someone with access to AI can fix a bicycle if they haven't even touched a spanner.
30 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 44.1 ms ] threadI realize the hyperbolic framing of the idea, but none-the-less I haven't been able to get it out of my head. This article feels like it's another piece of the same puzzle.
AI is like oil, in that it's "burning" a resource that took geological timescales to accrue. Its value derives from the energy-dense and instantaneous act of combusting a fossil fuel, and in this particular part of the "terrain", it will be a local maximum for A Long Time.
Just like how it's taken absurdly long (still very much WIP) for human societies to prioritize weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, I fear we are going to latch onto GenAI/LLMs pretty hard, and not let go.
I haven’t felt to bad about my creative works being fed into training models. Taken by itself, my creations are minuscule. But it’s very apparent when I look at AI as a whole, having taken from everyone in aggregate.
I feel that.
All of this stuff is clearly a highly cherry-picked gymnastic exercise to justify a pre-existing position. Classic Elephant and Rider stuff.
It’s the same as support for the snail darter. Same as the story about how groups shouldn’t go out during COVID but BLM protests are fine. And if by some incredible chance it had been the FSF or Brewster Kahle who had produced GPT then you guys would be talking about how information should be unchained because creative work belongs to all Man.
Couching this blatantly motivated reasoning by quoting past philosophers is just such middle-brow woe-is-me whining. Take one look at yourselves in an honest sense. Do you have any principles or will you slave them all to your outcomes?
And now I must repeat the litany lest one assume that my opposition to this kind of balderdash be construed as some kind of political tribalism:
* I don’t think we should destroy endangered species
* I think COVID wasn’t a hoax and does spread in large groups
* I think people have a right to protest if they are discriminated against and that includes the black people at BLM
* I love the Internet Archive and have donated to them
I don’t subscribe to this basic idea. Copyrights are a legal fiction designed to prop up an industry. Somehow from that we went to the idea that creative work output is property. It isn’t. It’s a service. This is why “works made for hire” is a thing.
This is the same reason that reasonable people don’t believe that fanfic authors should be jailed.
Likewise, I've felt like the meritocracy story that the author sets up as the "moral foundation" has heavily attenuated in this century. It's still used as the justification in America (I'm rich because I deserve it, you're not rich because you didn't work as hard/smart as me) but it feels like that story is wearing thin. Or that the relative proportion of the luck / ovarian lottery aspect has become so much larger than the skill+hard work aspect.
The trend of the rich getting richer, of them using their power to manipulate the system to further advantage them and theirs at the expense of everyone else, existed before AI burst into the public in '20-21. Maybe, like the fake media, it will finally be the kick people need to let go of the meritocracy trap* and realize we need a change.
* I like the notion of meritocracy, it just seems like America has moved from aiming for that, to using the story of it as an excuse to or opiate for the masses.
No one steals from them.
So far AI companies were settling by throwing VC cash at it so the vocal ones that do have IP will be paid off.
Corporations are just so large and powerful, that people feel hopeless. Byt we could still get together and enact legislation which will override them. Othing is impossible, it just takes some imagination and organisation.
Like Chomsky once said, if the peasants of Haiti could organise and overthrow their government and create a functioning democracy, then surely we can too, with far more advantages.
There are much much bigger forces that impact society in the way the author describes.
The premise is that AI does not allow to do this any more, which is completely false. It may not allow to do it in the same way, so its true that some jobs may disappear, but others will be created.
The article is too alarmist by someone who has drank all of the corporate hype. AI is not AGI. AI is an automation tool, like any other that we have invented before. The cool thing is that now we can use natural language as a programming language which was not possible before. If you treat AI as something that can thin k, you will fail again and again. If you treat it as an automation tool, that cannot think you will get all of the benefits.
Here i am talking about work. Of course AI has introduced a new scale of AI slop, and that has other psycological impacts on society.
AI is exposing the myths of talent and erasing differences between humans making them all a uniform array of subjects. However this erasure comes at the cost of return to monarchy style of economic model, where wealth would be moved from common population to the owners of AI or the neo-monarchies.
The “knowledge cut off date” is 12 to 18 months ago for models, which essentially means that copyright has, in some ways, shrunk to that period since designing around is now very easy.
Given most people live on what they produced recently and not 20 years ago there’s an argument this makes access to knowledge and techniques fairer. Constant new creation is required to obtain a markup and that drives forward productivity
In other words it’s the copyright/patent argument all over again. And it’s perhaps a debate we need to have again as a service society.
I'm cautiously optimistic because perhaps AGI will find a way to implement it - if it is sentient at that level, then it would be rather difficult to be owned by some person or corporation. Obviously LLMs are very far from there and remains just a tool for now.
You used to need the privilege of knowing the right people or knowing the right sources. But you don’t need that anymore.
What honestly could be better for meritocracy than AI?
"We’re in a narrow window where institutional choices still matter, where there’s enough distributed economic and political power to reshape who controls AI infrastructure and how its benefits flow."
China has AI infrastructure and has made it very clear how its benefits flow. Not to people, "despite" China being communist. In other words we can't do this unless we were to stop China first, or China honestly cooperates, which they've never done. And if you don't do that, then your institutions can only sabotage our side.
You want to exercise control, fine, but first need to have that control.
I wonder if the "vibe coders" can fix their own code. Or find a very subtle logic error in it. Hell, I wonder if someone with access to AI can fix a bicycle if they haven't even touched a spanner.