Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kfractal t1_j56s8ln wrote

the power of capitalism to draw down moral barriers is amazing.

391

SansCitizen t1_j57mgsi wrote

"So what made you decide to develop the technology that would inevitably bring about the extinction of all mankind?"

"Just a crisp twenty, and a couple wrinkly old fives... Stupid vending machine outside the conference room wouldn't even take 'em, and I'm pretty sure the twenty was fake: Jackson's portrait looked AI generated."

100

CodeGlitch t1_j5et0kb wrote

Where is this quote from?

6

SansCitizen t1_j5gykeu wrote

The part of my brain that, as a result of watching way too many cartoons growing up, is trained to spit out an endless stream of social commentary in the form of random cutaway gags.

12

yaosio t1_j5a7hva wrote

There were no moral barriers, that was an excuse they made up. They couldn't figure out how to monitize their language models without eating up their search revenue. Now that LLMs are fast approaching usability for more than writing fictional stories Google is being forced to drop the act and find a way to make money with their technology. If they don't then they will be left behind and turn into the next Ask Jeeves.

When a company says they did something and their reason has nothing to do with money they are not telling the truth. It is always about money.

17

DoktoroKiu t1_j5bhemu wrote

Yeah, like unless they are hooking up an AGI or other agent that has the ability to continually learn and affect the real world, all of the "safety" and morality talk is largely centered on making sure people can't turn it into a racist nazi bot, because that would affect their bottom line.

There is a threat to using these tools to mislead people (like russian twitter bots), but unless they stop publishing papers there is no way to put the genie into the bottle again. And the people fooled by that narrative would probably be duped by a basic ass Markov chain anyway.

2

psychedoutcasts t1_j5adr7h wrote

Yea one day all graphs will be the same but no one will be able to tell the difference.

7

TheLastSamurai t1_j5b3fhf wrote

I mean what else did we expect. It’s going to be a race to the bottom

1

MisterGGGGG t1_j59uxo1 wrote

Yes.

Except you misspelled "freedom" as "moral barriers".

−11

unclepaprika t1_j5a2i6d wrote

Ehr ma fredurms!

"Moral barriers" means so much more than just freedom my guy.

9

Feni555 t1_j5bj0f2 wrote

Censorship is still censorship, and in the case of LLMs they basically lobotomize the bots. Ai filters are a horrible idea unless the target audience is children.

1

MisterGGGGG t1_j5a3y8k wrote

Not in this case.

The author of this piece, and you, want censorship built in to the very tools that are given out to the world.

−10

Feni555 t1_j5bj7am wrote

Only reddit liberals could support something like this and think they're on the right side.

I'm sorry you got down voted, the zombies will not debate you. There's not much point talking to them.

2

Orc_ t1_j58qb6j wrote

You should see the moral barriers to technology of an open and egalitarian society without capitalism (spoilers: there would be none).

The only thing holding Google back was fear of legal consequences, now that OpenAI has "paved a way" they can watch out for risks more closely.

Under communism, communalism or anarchism AI would have no moral barriers. In fact crypto-anarchism online is really hard to setup because as soon as they put up decentralized "shops" or forums they get full cp so the creators have to dial back and centralize their system yet again just to stop that. Rinse and repeat.

−15

StupidBrotherInLaw t1_j59mh7k wrote

You really don't know anything at all about communism, do you?

6

Orc_ t1_j5adgqz wrote

What is you definition of communism?

3

Orc_ t1_j5ad6m7 wrote

I do I've studied it a lot Recently I've been reading Kropotkin and that's basically one of the only authors I have left I've gone through 72 books on it for around 8 years. Basically it falls under the umbrella un anarchist systems where nothing can be centralized, pretty much all technology said society would create would be open-source.

1

TheShishkabob t1_j5aq6lo wrote

You've studied "a lot" but never realized that laws still exist under communism? You're attributing the very concept of a legal system with capitalism for some reason but in reality the two are not the same at all.

Anyone saying that "nothing can be centralized" under fucking communism doesn't know the first thing about it.

1

Orc_ t1_j5az2i0 wrote

No, I attributed an actual effective legal system with the concept of the state, not to capitalism. Same thing happens with resources, i.e. The Tragedy of The Commons.

I think you don't understand how centralization is not communistic as it takes power away from the people and into a few hands, that's just a government, dude...

You really think under anarchism only a small group of people can work and develope AI under a closed-source?

Communism isn't when free food and nothing else.

It's about all aspects of life, information and developement. When everybody owns all tech they all have access to it.

You seem to have encounted a problem with your own system, that's not my problem, you go ahead and talk yourself out of this one, but you can't, one way or the other you gonna end up with something that looks like a state and congratulations you just screwed it up yet again.

1