Algorithm replacing global value-chain, which replaced mass-production, which replaced applied-science, which replaced imperial-commercial, which replaced Mediæval, which replaced classical-ancient...
I think Cosma and I would say that we are - if not blithely optimistic - certainly in agreement that we can't do without these vast systems, even while we want to resist their encroachments. Really what we are doing here is trying to pivot the debate away from a fight between OMG AGI PAPERCLIPZ-BASILISK-HERE-WE-COME on the one hand, and SOFTWARE-WILL-EAT-THE-WORLD-AND-IT-IS AWESOME on the other to a more specific understanding of the consequences of this new form of representation. I'm guessing that some people will be far more optimistic than we are - others will think that we're not nearly pessimistic enough. But understanding how these work as social systems seems to us to be the first step towards actually getting a real debate going. Thanks for the quick and valuable response!
The fact that the overlap between the LLMs-wll-t-th-wrld-&-t-wll-b-wsm! crowd and the earlier crpt-wll-t-th-wrld-&-t-wll-b-wsm! crowd should give a great many people more pause than it has...
"...fight between OMG AGI PAPERCLIPZ-BASILISK-HERE-WE-COME on the one hand, and SOFTWARE-WILL-EAT-THE-WORLD-AND-IT-IS AWESOME on the other..."
Is this really the debate, or just the sensational attention grabbing media selection bias? It seems to me that I read far more nuanced discussion of AI, particularly about its near-term biases and issues accompanied by an exhortation to ignore existentialist threats. As for AI bringing on unalloyed benefits, haven't we all lived long enough to have heard this script for many new inventions only to realize later that technology always comes with pros and cons, which we hope, as Kevin Kelly wrote in "What Technology Wants" offers a small positive net positive?
I think Cosma and I would say that we are - if not blithely optimistic - certainly in agreement that we can't do without these vast systems, even while we want to resist their encroachments. Really what we are doing here is trying to pivot the debate away from a fight between OMG AGI PAPERCLIPZ-BASILISK-HERE-WE-COME on the one hand, and SOFTWARE-WILL-EAT-THE-WORLD-AND-IT-IS AWESOME on the other to a more specific understanding of the consequences of this new form of representation. I'm guessing that some people will be far more optimistic than we are - others will think that we're not nearly pessimistic enough. But understanding how these work as social systems seems to us to be the first step towards actually getting a real debate going. Thanks for the quick and valuable response!
The fact that the overlap between the LLMs-wll-t-th-wrld-&-t-wll-b-wsm! crowd and the earlier crpt-wll-t-th-wrld-&-t-wll-b-wsm! crowd should give a great many people more pause than it has...
"...fight between OMG AGI PAPERCLIPZ-BASILISK-HERE-WE-COME on the one hand, and SOFTWARE-WILL-EAT-THE-WORLD-AND-IT-IS AWESOME on the other..."
Is this really the debate, or just the sensational attention grabbing media selection bias? It seems to me that I read far more nuanced discussion of AI, particularly about its near-term biases and issues accompanied by an exhortation to ignore existentialist threats. As for AI bringing on unalloyed benefits, haven't we all lived long enough to have heard this script for many new inventions only to realize later that technology always comes with pros and cons, which we hope, as Kevin Kelly wrote in "What Technology Wants" offers a small positive net positive?