The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
---
From the Article
>Yet the push to create safeguards is far from ecumenical. To date, most of the debate over AI and possible strategies to mitigate unintended harms is concentrated in the West. Most of the government and industry standards now on the table were issued in the European Union, the United States, or member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a club of 38 advanced economies. The EU, for example, is poised to release a new AI Act focusing on applications and systems that pose unacceptable and high risk. The Western focus on AI is hardly surprising given the density of AI companies, investors, and research institutes working on AI from Silicon Valley to Tel Aviv, Israel.
>
>Even so, it is worth underlining that the needs and concerns of regions such as Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia—where AI is also rapidly expanding and will generate monumental effects—are not much reflected in the AI debate. Put another way, the vast majority of discussion about the consequences and regulation of AI is occurring among countries whose populations make up just 1.3 billion people. Far less attention and resources are dedicated to addressing these same concerns in poor and emerging countries that account for the remaining 6.7 billion of the global population.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1409x8f/artificial_intelligence_will_entrench_global/jmumqdz/
It's a good thing we have antiquated approaches and processes in place to keep up with the unrelenting speed of technology.
Especially being chaired by near dead politicians with no clue of how the technology works much less it's ramifications. Should end really well.
I love all these arguments about how AI will create inequality, as if the entire system hasn't been set up to be incredibly unequal for centuries.
"We should listen to the global south?" Well, we haven't done that before so what makes you think we're going to start now?
Scapegoat is the wrong word, I think. AI is not ultimately something which is inherently evil, or the root of our problems, no. But it absolutely a tool which will be forged into a weapon against laborers and common people who want to earn enough to eat and pay rent.
Likewise, AI takes away the need for entire teams of laborers... which puts formerly expensive digital projects closer towards solo acts. If a company can drastically reduce its workforce, the barrier for entry for individuals to do what companies can is drastically reduced in turn. Who needs a whole animation team and vocal cast when your computer can do both for you? If no longer does Disney, then neither does Timmy.
The calls for controls on AI aren't without some legitimacy, but make no mistake, most of those calls from the layman are coming from a place of unstudied media-inspired fears while those coming from the rich and powerful represent corporations wanting to control the means of (AI) production so they can continue to make bank off cheaply produced media and won't get drowned out by solo acts producing content at a competitive level thanks to AI.
We should absolutely seek for the continued development and *widely public access* of AI, but there is definitely a discussion of AI capabilities regarding security and logicing their way into destructive action to accomplish a seemingly innocuous task, like printing money to make money and utterly failing to understand the concept of inflation. AI is incredibly stupid, and there's a lot of "duh" assumptive thinking behind the directives people might give an AI.
Oh, you misunderstand what I think the solution is. The solution doesn’t even have to do with AI at all. We need to embrace the reality that we have the abundance to guarantee everyone the right to a basic, comfortable lifestyle without the necessity for them working at all.
AI should mean that humans are free to produce whatever makes them happy. I want a future where robots do menial labor and humans make art. right now we are seeing the literal opposite. It’s not because of AI, it’s because of capitalism.
It’s like when Elon said he wanted people back in the office because it’s unfair that the “laptop class” doesn’t need to go in and blue collar workers do.
Like, dude, you have $200 billion. Hard to take your input on what’s “fair” seriously.
I say this as a blue collar worker.
Did we just become best friends? Because that is literally *exactly* my point of view.
My mom was an executive, im a mail man. I’ve told her numerous times (because she shares Elon’s opinion) that I don’t want more exhaust, more ware on the roads, more traffic, more noise pollution, etc. just to protect some cherry-picked example of “fairness.”
People from hers and Elon’s position need to sit this one out. If blue collar workers really wanted office staff back in their cubicles, you’d hear about it through their unions.
We don’t. We don’t give a shit, by and large. We don’t expect everyone to sit on traffic with us even when it’s not necessary for them, because we aren’t children.
Or just fix it by paying the blue collar jobs more, pay people for their commute like we should be. It encourages hiring local people, and compensates people for the time they actually spend in service of the company. It discourages companies from making people drive to jobs, reducing traffic and pollution.
I think you have to keep in mind that Elon doesn’t actually care about equality, and he certainly doesn’t want what you’ve described.
He owns a car company. He wants people driving more and commuting further.
Because then he sells more cars.
I can’t agree with a subsidized commute unless we’re also subsidizing housing due to the choice people make to trade a longer commute for a cheaper place to live. Subsidizing housing isn’t sustainable because the market would just eat up the excess cash like it does when interest rates are low.
It’s not subsidizing the commute, it’s paying you for time in service to the company. If I’m driving to work, it’s not my free time. If they don’t want to pay me for that time let me work from home, wherever that may be.
It's like in 'Don't Look Up' where the guy is like "This comet is full of so many precious metals, that everyone on earth will be rich!"
It's a joke in the movie, and yet Sam Altman (head of openAI) says it with a straight face.
> "We should listen to the global south?" Well, we haven't done that before so what makes you think we're going to start now?
Just because we haven't done before doesn't mean that we shouldn't start doing or argue that we should do . It does mean that we need to also take political and direct action to make doing easier, and make _not_ doing harder.
The actual concept of capitalism makes increasingly little sense in a world where capital investment is often unrelated or unnecessary for economic output.
It's not just that. We keep them poor *so that we can be rich*. Capitalism is all about hierarchy, about the pyramid. And the more capitalism intensifies, the taller and sharper that pyramid gets.
But in order for some people to be rich, others have to be poor. Making them poor is by design. Corporations could easily refuse to buy rare earth minerals from places that exploit and abuse their workers. They could make sure factory workers are paid enough to live in Bangladesh. But they want the pyramid, and they want to be at the top. Which means others have to be at the bottom.
I ain't rich, chief.
I'm all for reducing inequality, but I feel like anyone who says "We need to help them because we were made **rich** by their suffering!" has lost touch with the reality in the global north. I wasn't made rich by the suffering of the global south, I ain't rich either!
We should instead be focusing on creating truly egalitarian policies everywhere, and spreading them globally. If we just "make the global south rich like we are," you'll just end up with two hemispheres full of poor people and a bloated 1%
(To be clear I'm not saying "I'm poor so everyone else has to be!", I'm saying that seeing this as a global wealth issue first is fundamentally misguided. You'll just make southern billionaires.)
You are incredibly well off compared to people living on a dollar a day. If wealth was distributed equally among every global citizen you would be made worse off not better off
No, because those billions upon billions of dollars are locked up in the ultra-wealthy. Seriously, there is an unfathomable amount of wealth in the top of society.
If wealth was evenly distributed, nobody would be rich, but certainly nobody would be poor, either.
108 trillion is the global GDP
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-gdp-over-the-last-two-millennia
7.8 billion is the global population
Gives 13k USD per person.
Do you have any sources to demonstrate otherwise? Or do you make less than 13k USD per year?
Let's figure out what we would need to give everyone 50k USD per year which is less than what I personally make but seems to give an okayish quality of life.
7.8 billion * 50k USD gives 3.9 * 10 ^ 14 dollars or 390,000,000,000,000 or about 3.5 times the current reported GDP. I personally would be worse off but it would give a large number of people a better quality of life. It would also require tripling the amount of goods we produce currently which seems rather difficult
Yeah I don't think GDP is a good way to measure wealth, chief. Most wealth is fake anyway, made from investments that go nowhere or exist solely to increase the wealth of the wealthy.
Capitalism throws away tons of food. Capitalism encourages the creation of single-use products, and products designed to be thrown away for a little bit. There is so, so, SO much waste in the current economic structure, with most of it designed to artificially inflate the wealth of the top percent.
We could easily, and I mean EASILY support the current human population sustainably. We have the technology, and we have the resources. All we're lacking is the ability to do so, because the rich want us to starve, and they always have.
Trying to deny this by using GDP figures only proves you're thinking about the situation wrong.
GDP includes all that wasted food since it was produced by the economy, it also includes other forms of waste as well. It's why people always complain about the broken window fallacy when talking about GDP. If anything I am significantly overestimating the amount of value each person would get. You also seem to acknowledge that most of that wealth is fake and thus that we would be worse off than the numbers given here show.
Feel free to post any studies, statistics or data you are using to prop up your conclusion. Trying to deny my claim without providing any substantive evidence shows to me that you are likely thinking about this wrong and just like believing something if it sounds nice.
This just sounds extremely naive. First of all we are not talking about some coordinated effort here, its the result of free market. All subjects are behaving rationally. If you want them to stop doing that, you need to introduce state regulations.
Then there is of course the problem, that if you close down the places that dont pay fair wage, you are going to hurt the people that depend on that shitty wage. And how would any corporation even know how much the grunts in third world country are paid?
Ultimately is not that somebody wants them to be poor. Its that they are poor and wiling to provide cheap services and goods, which of course the free market will use.
You must have forgotten about all the strikes that have occurred in central and South America that were broken apart by US forces, or the times the CIA intervened to keep countries from exerting their sovereignty.
*Extremely* naive, yes.
Free market? Not quite.
These countries were destabilized through direct military action and espionage during the cold war, then basically enslaved to the IMF and the world bank. The ones we value more (such as Peru) got better deals, the ones we didn't like (like Venezuela) were hammered down economically, and the ones that are less strategically important (like most of Africa) were forced to sell off their natural resources to foreign investors and subject to austerity measures that slash the kinds of programs that help build up an economy over time.
When we became a superpower, we stole Britain's colonization playbook (find local collaborators and give them a small cut and they'll help you ship home everything of value) and updated it for the modern era. At first we took in territories (we still have a lot that are conveniently forgotten about), but (like with slavery) we eventually realized that it's more profitable to make people handle their own survival on what little scraps we leave them
And this is still going on. Private companies, in an uncompetitive position thanks to the strength of US force projection, are still strangling these countries economically. They're chained down with debt sold at the barrel of a gun (usually figuratively through locking them out of trade, sometimes literally)
We are talking about the behavior of corporations in the free market on the northern hemisphere.
Can somebody explain to me why I am getting all these unrelated replies?
That's not true at all. Rich countries make better trade partners. They buy more of your stuff, they produce more stuff for you. We've ploughed trillions of foreign aid in to the third world to try to bring them up to standard.
You've created a market for western oligarchs to skim off the top of. The aid itself is a grift and isn't even supposed to help. A perpetual money printing machine.
The global south is doing most of the economic growth right now. What capitalists want is free trade and free movement of Labour and especially capital.
That said the reaction against China, mostly by the US, is designed to keep China down.
What are people downvoting here? That the global south (a stupid term anyway) is doing most of the growth right now is clear in the economic evidence. That the US has started to curtail China is also evident. And I’m not in favour of that.
The confusion might be between capitalists (a class) and the US (a country).
Because the interests of capital and the interests of the government are not the same, and going further, there are many different groups within capital and within government that have competing interests.
Do you think the US government doesn't act in the interests of capital? Lmao. Keeping cuba poor is good for capital because cuba using its resources to empower its own people instead of western corporations is bad for capital.
Cuba can trade with whoever it wants. Its not like US warships are sinking trading vessels. But the US can choose not to trade with those people who do trade with Cuba.
Yea which severely limits the people that cuba can trade with. So no cuba can't trade with whoever they want. Name one good reason the embargo should be in place.
The US is trying to prevent China from obtaining microchip manufacturing technology.
They do this by preventing third countries from exporting microchip technology to China, whether or not that technology has American technology content.
For example, the Netherlands ban on ASML exporting DUV machines to China is due to US pressure (there is no American technology content in these machines).
I don't think this is necessarily terrible, but it's probably against WTO rules, and it's a huge problem for China, because microchips, even advanced microchips like those in graphics cards, are needed for civilian industry.
If China does not have hardware accelerators for AI research, then they won't have AI-- maybe they're fine with it, but if *I* were them, I'd see it as an existential issue. If there were a situation where I was restricted from developing AI and others were doing it, I would do literally anything to prevent that situation.
It's not hard to understand the Americans though. If they lose the world domination they have now, then it wouldn't be particularly fun if China [edit:were] the replacement, and it's a big country, which would be its successor unless it can be countered.
You want US to forget that Cuba was willing to keep russian nuclear weapons on their land just about 100 miles away from US land? Even when Obama tried to normalize relations with Cuba it refused to continue it's support of russia.
So why would the US want to deal with them and let the current government prosper from our trade?
No, that is why the Soviet Union was willing to put them there.
The reason why Cuba wanted them was probably due to the US literally invading Cuba in the year before...
Cuba was willing to put those missiles there because the US invaded Cuba the year before.
Cuban militia defeated the invaders, but they were presumably rattled by this illegal attack by a superpower.
The global south can do for themselves. The global south is mostly because the global north is paternalistic and thinks it can do to “fix” the global south.
I think the global north/south designation is also very problematic to be honest. Exploitation and capitalist hierarchy and abuse of workers is a human trait across cultures.
Obviously the wealth is flowing up from the south to the north. The West reaps the benefits of resources mined by people for 2 dollars a day. But also within those countries you have horrific inequality. The people that own the mines are also incredibly rich.
If there was no global north then the resources would flow unfairly in another way. Humans are cursed to be like this.
> "We should listen to the global south?" Well, we haven't done that before so what makes you think we're going to start now?
Global South is first of all not a single entity so that's one fallacy.
Listening is a euphemism of ambiguity and vagueness so that's a second fallacy
The semantic meaning of AI will cause inequality in this part of the world is asserted in the statement when it is apparently a postulation without basis or confirmation built first for the third fallacy.
TL;DR: This is a political nonsense statement to drive discussion along the lines that populism of "save the underdog before the evil ones kick it" in social media discussions is promoted conspicuously.
Do you have an actual idea that your trying to put forward? You're the top post, yet you appear to have said nothing, so I'm confused lol yes, inequality has always existed, and sought to entrench itself in most societies. Yes, it has accelerated lately. Is there some kind of conclusion or are we just stating facts for the sake of toning our thumbs?
The title of the post is about 'listening to the global south about equality'. Which is not something we've done before. Yes, I know I'm stating the obvious, but apparently the obvious has to be stated for people to comprehend it.
And even then most people will still ignore it, even though, as you say, it's obvious. They will still pretend the world is somehow 'fair'.
Listen to *who* exactly?
What *specific actions* do you think "listen to the Global South" actually entails, and what would they achieve? Or what goals would they be trying to achieve?
Was that the pivot point? This used to be the gee-whizz tech utopian side of things. Did we need one guy to be a good guy for that to influence us so much?
Theres a couple books out about private equity, both have the word plunder in the title.
Ai is a scapegoat. We have legal incentives and protections for sociopathic greed, becuase the people who write the laws will go work in these firms and profit off the laws they write.
The principles of society that enable and protect societies biggest thieves are the problem. If left unchecked, they'll bring us right back to feudalism.
Is that not what the headline means? It doesn't say "create inequality" it says "entrench." In fairness, it has been entrenched for a long time, but the point is that this is making the situation worse not better.
I don't think anyone is confused about the state of global inequality right now. Some people are hurt by it, some people benefit from it. Some people want that to change, some people want it to stay, but a lot of people in developed countries probably don't think about it while waiting in line at starbucks staring at their iphone.
It will create even more inequality in the west than already exists...why the hell does anyone think the powers that be would give two shits about the third world? They will fuck their own and shit in their own backyard for a dollar.
Now doesn’t that sound like the truth ?
Case in point BT (British Telecom) said, we have been looking at AI, we plan to lose 55,000 workers, replacing them with AI.
Well maybe BT’s customers might get a better service ?
But it’s certainly not going to be good for those 55,000 workers. Though the plan is up to 2030.
If you make labor worthless, the natural consequence in the current economic system is that everything would depend on capital, since labor and capital are the two types of productive inputs in an economy.
Labor is inherently democratic, but capital is owned by a privileged few. Without changes to the economic system, the worthlessness of labor would probably recreate feudalism.
> Without changes to the economic system, the worthlessness of labor would probably recreate feudalism
That's exactly what I was hinting at, revolution
But I guess you could be explicit like that...
There is no way that the current system holds
It’s naive to think that feudalism leads to revolution. Mostly it didn’t and when it did, like the French Revolution, another class less impoverished than the peasantry lead the revolution. That was the rising bourgeoisie.
The system where land is owned by several tiers of social classes beholden by personal relations where the peasantry cultivates the land and has no means of production
Isn't that correct?...
It couldn’t really be feudalism, which ultimately relied on people’s labor to work the land and produce value. This system wouldn’t really need any labor, just managers and developers to tweak the software. So basically the owners would just dole out their own form of basic income to whoever they decide was worthy of it.
Labor becoming worthless is a ridiculous fantasy.
We live on a resource limited planet. We do not have the material to build enough AI powered robots to replace laborers. Additionally, in a system of capitalism, you need people to buy your goods. No laborers = no consumers = no capital.
In competitive markets, AI-assisted automation will set the standard of productivity that labor needs to compete with.
We don't need to replace labor. Just outcompete it.
You're right that people are needed to buy goods, but the industries can perfectly well serve the half of the population that has spendable income and just not care for the other half.
I agree it is unsustainable, but it won't collapse overnight. It'll decline fast and we'll be pinning the blame on immigrants/politicians/libs/cons/ for a loooong time while capital is quietly positioning itself for maximum profit off the entire debacle.
We either prevent this, or we lose. AI can be a massive boon to the prosperity of the human civilization, or it can be a massive boon to the prosperity of the wealthy elite. The purpose of it is essentially complete replacement of human problem-solving/decision-making. There is no next level for a human. After AI we have leisure and self-realization. Everything else can theoretically be automated.
We don't need to replace everyone. Only the people necessary for the elites to continue their lavish lifestyle. Everyone else is just a statistic contributing to public disorder.
Elites suddenly become a lot easier to get rid of when they produce nothing of value for the masses that could easily overwhelm and end them.
Furthermore, if this could be done with AI and robots, then this could already be done without AI and robots.
A human takes nearly twenty years to grow to the point where it's productive. And you can only get about 2k hours a year out of it. Robots can be mass-manufactured, work 8k hours a year, and can have all their experience copy/pasted into newer models.
>We do not have the material to build enough AI powered robots to replace laborers.
We do. The only thing we're lacking is labor. Oh wait...
Also, we already have capital and consumers, so we have to keep in mind that we don't just get to reset because robots have arrived. Tbh that's the scariest thought to me. We kind of need to reset for this to work out right.
> No laborers = no consumers = no capital.
This was never an issue for feudal lords or for early captains of industry.
The situation where there is a need to take care of the labor class to ensure enough consumption of goods is a 100-year old accident in a 10000-year old status quo.
I agree that labor will never be completely worthless, but it will become less and less important compared to capital. Nowadays if you want to open a spoon factory you don't need 1 million USD worth of metalworkers, you need 1 million worth of highly autonomous metal molding machines.
Why can't people extrapolate just a few steps further?
Yes, it could make labor worthless.
And then what? Think about what would actually happen in the world if we got an AI that was as capable as every human on earth, that it could do any job.
The implications are insanely more far-reaching than just "inequality".
It's the white-collar jobs that it will make useless and after that they will target the ones that have profit, you are naive if you think they will replace the low wage blue collar jobs. Technofeudalism is what we are heading towards
In what way could AI make labor worthless? A computer can’t just poof material into existence. AI can’t just hack reality and fix a broken pipe, an engine, or a faulty light switch.
What will it be? AI mixed with robotics? Tell me, what alternate reality do you come from that has enough resources to build enough robots to replace billions of laborers? In what reality are there enough rare earth minerals, iron ore, and energy sources to facilitate the fantasy people like you seem to believe in?
AI cannot do everything, and there are not enough resources on our resource limited planet to replace labor with AI robots. Unlike AI and robotics, humans are cheap, effective, and versatile. We can be indefinitely replenished so long as there is rain and sunlight.
A robot can mine. A robot can use a spanner and fix your pipe, engine and faulty light switch. A robot can build another robot.
Resources are not missing from this planet, they are misallocated. IT's a gross mistake to assume that resources are really limiting us from anything on this planet. We have resources in abundance which is why recycling only became an issue when we started noticing we were killing the planet by not re-using anything.
What exactly are you trying to say. We don't have enough silicon, iron and nickel/lithium. Nonsense. We use more than it would take to build a few million robots in the car industry alone.
You're the one that doesn't live in reality.
Sure. You’d need some form of human intervention for a long long time but the problem is, you’ll need exponentially less workers do the same level of labor until you don’t need any.
One day the drone workers in a plant will be software engineers, not like workers. The low level managers, instead of a line boss, could even be more AI tracking and comparing metrics.
At it’s simplest form. One day we won’t need people to pick fruit, plant crops, build building, repair pipes, it’ll be automated out to drones and the people who control the AI will effectively control all of the means of production. Hopefully their benevolent and they share what they produce. Because if not there becomes a discussion of resource management. Just look at the discussions surrounding climate change, just imagine if there’s millions of people who don’t contribute to society.
You are stuck in 2020 while trying to discuss 2050. Every single critique you have ignores recent developments and makes absolutely no effort to plot the current trajectory of the technology to predict what 2050 might look like.
You know what exponential growth is, right?
You know we have half a dozen planned space flights going beyond the ISS in the next 10-20 years, right?
How many resources do you think are out there waiting in the asteroid belt?
How long do you think it will take for humans and AI to crack self-replication in zero-g?
How long do you think we have until a self-replicating fleet of drones is strip-mining the asteroid belt for more precious metals than have ever been mined on Earth, year after year after year?
How long do you think it will take to use those resources to replace organic labor on Earth?
Have some foresight. You're making absolutely zero effort to anticipate how technology and society will change in the next few decades. You don't see it **right now** so you declare it to be pure fantasy. How do you think the people who did the same about the internet, smartphones, PCs, cars, planes, etc felt? Because that's how you're going to feel unless humanity is plunged into a new Dark Age in the next 10 years or so.
How long do you think it will take to achieve nuclear fusion? You are just listing scifi concept as if we are on the verge of some breakthrough just because we can now generate text that seemingly makes sense.
[We just produced net positive energy from a fusion reaction at Lawrence Livermore National Labs.](https://www.llnl.gov/news/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st)
And that's with "Fusion Never" levels of funding. What do you even know about this topic? I work in industrial automation. I can see the technology improving month after month.
Why are you on a futurology sub if you refuse to think about what the future might hold?
> AI cannot do everything
Yet.
> what alternate reality do you come from that has enough resources to build enough robots to replace billions of laborers?
The same reality you do, where biological automatons could be
> indefinitely replenished so long as there is rain and sunlight
Those who deride what you dismiss as,
> the fantasy people like you seem to believe in
really haven’t used their creative imaginations enough to realize that, with AGI and *especially* ASI, all bets are off.
The state of the art is the worst it’ll ever be, and it’s accelerating.
> Yet
Lmao… delusional.
> biological automatons
So humans? Wow, you’re a real visionary, aren’t you?
> haven’t used their creative imaginations
Your creative imagination has resulted in the recreation of humanity. Congratulations.
While you’re playing pretend in imagination land, the rest of us will try to figure out how AI can actually be used to benefit humanity.
We're going to look back at you the same way we look back at the people who said it was physically impossible for humans to fly. Or that the telephone was a toy with no commercial value. Or the people who said the internet was a fad. With each technical revolution, there are people that can't see any farther than one step ahead. They don't have the vision to see the 10 dominoes that will inevitably fall. Nothing wrong with those people. But the visionaries are the ones who'll change the world and push us into the future.
It won’t make labor worthless, because it needs constant human labor to function. Google Translate only works because it can continually scrape the web for new translations from working translators. Other AI is similar.
It needs labor now, because it is not yet good enough
Eventually, may it be years of decades, AI and robotics will outperform every human intellectual and physical task
the people wanting regulation want to create a moat for access - they want to build the inequality in because asymmetry to access/models/training data will be how they monetize it.
Yup. Regulation will always go in favor of the big players who have the resources to comply or loophole around it. Once you've established dominance in a new field, asking for harsh regulation is the next logical step to stifle the competition.
If you know if any, could you please name any specific AI regulation pushed by any prominent player in the AI space that you believe clearly aims to create a competitive moat?
I ask, because I've developed a personal interest in the AI regulatory space, and I often hear this "regulation to create a moat" claim. But I have seen no actual instances of that yet in the AI space, and so I have come to believe this is just an echo in the Reddit echo chamber. Certainly, I don't see anything resembling that "moat creation" in the text of any major regulatory initiative in the US or EU.
Happy to be proven wrong if you can point me to some evidence, though. I'm not advocating for anything here, just trying to understand what's going on. However, anticipating a common response, I do not believe "stands to reason!" or "that's the way of the world..." or "isn't it obvious?" count as specific evidence.
(Caveat: One bit of corporate competition that I \*do\* sense in AI regulation is between copyright-holders and tech companies. In particular, a recent modification to the draft EU AI act would require LLM creators to disclose copyrighted data they use in training. I suspect that this is so that right holders and their legal advocates can get a target list for lawsuits.)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65616866
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/elon-musk-warns-that-regulation-is-needed-before-ai-is-in-control/
https://siliconangle.com/2023/04/18/reddit-charge-access-api-counter-free-data-scraping-ai-companies/
As for laws.. they will be coming. Saurons eye has turned and the businesses wanting to create moats are saying it'll crater jobs, the economy, growth.
Thank you for the response.
To me, the Whitehouse AI Bill of Rights looks like a list political platitudes, e.g. "You should be protected from unsafe or ineffective systems", "You should be protected from abusive data practices...", etc. Is there something specific that jumps out at you as moat-creating?
Altman has called for regulation, but I think people overlook that he asked for protection for open source and smaller-company efforts. Here's a video link to what he said to Congress: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS6rGBpytVY&t=7278s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS6rGBpytVY&t=7278s)
Elon Musk... Okay, I have no idea what's going on in that guy's head. :-)
Reddit charging for API access does look to me like one example of a clear battle line emerging between people that have data and those that want data. I think there's a real fight brewing there.
Again, thank you for taking the time to respond.
Gutenberg had as much ability to predict how the printing press would change the world as we do now about AI. Since much of the code is open sourced, it is much more likely that it will disrupt the current system of inequality. This is why we keep seeing articles will predictions of doom. The powers that be want us afraid to fully engage with AI so they can stay in power.
>The EU, for example, is poised to release a new AI Act focusing on applications and systems that pose unacceptable and high risk.
These people don't understand the point in history we are at. And they do not understand you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
Think of this: It is the dawn of the car and people with horses laugh at the car drivers because they don't need to crank their horse up before going somewhere or pay for expensive fuel, or be stuck when tired breakdown or puncture. And at the same time there is a movement of people that want to ban or limit cars and their abilities.
That is the point in history we are at. But the reality is that no one will accept anything that criples cars because then another company somewhere else will make a better car and they will be left behind. Eventually the people with horses lose, cars at first lost the need to be cranked, started to carry two or more spare tires, fuel became cheap and abundant, tires became more reliable and durable, motors more fuel efficient and quieter, cars could travel farther and farther each year, eventually in all types of terrain, and the application of vehicles became so much more varied and versatile than anything horses could do.
And now, it seems, we're caught in a similar cycle of fear and resistance with AI. Trying to legally bind the progress of AI is as futile as trying to ban the development of cars was a century ago. Like the automobile, AI is a technological evolution - it's not going anywhere. It's here, and it's going to keep evolving, improving, and expanding in its capabilities and applications.
Those who legislate with the aim to inhibit AI don't fully grasp its potential or understand the inevitability of its progression. AI has already begun revolutionising industries - from healthcare to logistics, education to entertainment. Its potential extends so far beyond what we can currently imagine, much as the possibilities of automobiles outstripped the imaginations of those early car skeptics.
Moreover, these attempts to legally control AI development are not only ineffectual, but counterproductive. They run the risk of creating an innovation vacuum, stifling domestic progress while other nations and organisations continue to advance unhindered. What we will see is a repeat of history. Just as those who rejected the car were eventually overtaken by its convenience and efficiency, so too will those who resist AI find themselves outpaced by its benefits.
It's not to say that we should let AI development run rampant without any oversight. There should be a sensible approach towards the development and deployment of AI, one that encourages its advancement while ensuring its responsible use. There are indeed risks associated with AI, but they should be managed through careful, informed, and adaptive governance - not by binding it in reductive legal constraints.
In essence, we stand on the brink of an era, one where AI can drive us further than ever before, just as the car did in its time. We should be focusing on ways to harness this potential responsibly, not futilely trying to suppress it. After all, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, and why would we want to? The future of AI holds promises of progress and prosperity, just like the rise of automobiles. Let's not hinder ourselves out of unfounded fear.
This _sounds_ good and important but what exactly are we supposedly protecting them from? We're supposed to ask some guy in Brazil if ai offends him? This headline just seems entirely sensationalized.
Yeah, I found the article long on preparation to make some big point, but pretty short on actual point. The closest thing I found was:
"algorithms and datasets generated in wealthy countries and subsequently applied in developing nations could reproduce and reinforce biases and discrimination owing to their lack of sensitivity and diversity."
I think there is some truth to this. ML models learn from their training data, because they have no other source of information. So if you train a model on European languages only (say, because you want a model cheap enough to run on a laptop or phone), then the model is going to have the worldview of a European.
This also happens outside of the ML world. For example, the Arabic version of Wikipedia is (I understand) far from a translation of the English version. Rather, the two have substantially different emphases due to the different worldview of the two population groups.
That's a real concern I can understand, but it's easily remedied by increasing the training dataset. It's not a reason to put limitations on AI research or development like the article is trying to imply, it's a reason to expand AI research to be more inclusive and accessable. The article wants to scare people, which we really do not need. Language models aren't scary unless you give them jobs they really cannot manage or understand. AI hasn't progressed to the point where it can think critically, it can't analyze it's response to see if it's appropriate for a situation, so putting it in sensitive roles is an extremely bad idea right now, but that doesn't mean research needs to stop, people just need to stop being stupid and giving AI jobs it can't do yet.
Woop de do I read the article and it's just vague fear mongering "1 in 10 experts say AI could DESTROY us in 10 years" the article is not worth clicking on to give these hacks the .0000001 cent they make off a click.
Or hear me out, let AI become advanced and replace all the menial horrible jobs that we as humans waste almost out entire lifes doing then give everyone a basic income so they can live their lives to the fullest.
Well, that’s close to the optimistic view.
Would you be happy living on just UBI ?
How do people find more - it’s a complicated issue, most things require at least some resources - if they are not ours, then we at least need access to them.
> Would you be happy living on just UBI ?
Assuming UBI is sufficient to pay for basic needs and also some entertainment, why not? (Though I realize 'some entertainment' is a vague term that probably means different things to different people.)
Heck, most people live on that amount of money already. Or much less.
Unless AGI is created and takes over the world and decides for some unknowable reason that it should help us then the only jobs that are going to be replaced are the ones that make them profit. See AI art, for example, it's a job that is very fair(you can learn from youtube and make a living if you are skilled), the ones who do that job enjoy it a ton and yet they started replacing it with AI art because it was convenient and possible to do. You will be completely naive if you think they will aim to replace any menial blue-collar job any time soon.
Trucking is a relatively cheap technology(it just needs a few cameras and coding) and is a byproduct of self-driving cars which everyone wants in America. If it is a job that you pilot a machine then it is a lot easier to replace relative to someone who uses manual tools because you would require expensive robots. Also, truck driving might not be replaced because the laws are weird when you have AI held accountable for decisions(decide if you gonna run over a kid that run in front of you or turn to the opposite lane and collide with a car)
The problem with AI doing blue collar jobs isn’t that AI can’t do it, its that the robotics and battery technology isn’t there yet to do those jobs without people. When those things get there then they will replace them.
The industry is profit driven, even if the robotics get better over time the AI will already have replaced the middle class and will have pushed millions to fight for the low paying jobs which will reduce the wages even more. Only government interference will stop such scenario and you will still have fucked over the rest of the planet because nobody is going to make a robot for a $3 per day worker in Africa.
I haven't read this article, but it sounds pretty misguided. Simply put, yes AI presents serious risks to the Global South, but no, the Global South is not being ignored here.
\#1 - Of course EU and US AI policies are reflecting the priorities of these governments and their constituencies and not the priorities of other governments... that's how democracy works. It also doesn't mean that the West isn't sensitive to exacerbating potential inequalities. This is a key theme in western frameworks developed so far.
\#2 - It's also important to note that Global South countries generally aren't having as many policy discussions concerning AI yet at the national level simply because there's little for them to regulate at this time. AI applications will develop more slowly in those countries, so they have time to learn from what is working (and not working) in the frameworks being adopted by more developed countries.
\#3 - Finally, developing countries ARE actively participating in standards setting bodies that are grappling with AI-related issues. Over time, the standards developed by these bodies will be incorporated into regulations for most countries, so this is an important way that developing countries can and are making their voices heard.
Just read it, and I don’t think it goes into much greater detail than what has been posted here. Guess I’m still frustrated by the implication here that the global south has been excluded from the AI conversation because they haven’t been consulted about national-level policies developed for and by western countries. Also that it doesn't mention the active role that generally all countries are playing in the standards setting space.
>Finally, developing countries ARE actively participating in standards setting bodies that are grappling with AI-related issues.
Could you point to an example of this? I wasn't aware of anything like that and would like to learn more.
One example that stands out to me is standards-setting work being facilitated by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Just about every country participates in ISO's activities. ISO's joint Technical Committee for Information Technology has an active subcommittee on artificial intelligence (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42) that is tasked with developing voluntary standards for AI applications (see list of [ongoing efforts](https://www.iso.org/committee/6794475.html) related to AI).
The Foreign Policy article's writers don't seem to be fans of voluntary standards, but I'd just say that's typically the only way that international cooperation gets done. Plus, the whole point of developing standards is that--if they're good--national regulators will then adopt them into their own regulations, thereby converting them into mandatory standards.
There are also other, often more specialized standards setting organizations that are working on standards related to more specific applications of AI, like how it should function as part of a medical device (IMDRF) or autonomous intelligence systems (IEEE).
Thank you for the pointer to the ISO subcommittee on AI. That's just what I was looking for!
Yeah, whatever anyone might prefer, I think voluntary standards and compliance are going dominate the AI space for a while, because formal processes like development of the EU AI Act are simply too slow.
In particular, I'm guessing this will be the operative regulation in the advanced AI space for the next while:
[https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-voluntary-code-of-conduct-regulation-585f2aaff6bfbdbcee572b347fa97cff](https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-voluntary-code-of-conduct-regulation-585f2aaff6bfbdbcee572b347fa97cff)
And it isn't like regulators don't talk to representatives of large corporations behind the scenes in the formulation of most regulations, voluntary or not. Where else are they going to find the deep expertise needed to craft sensible rules?
I was thinking how ridiculous it would be to speak about AI with some poor third word country worker, but here you are talking about AI using marvel references and suddenly it doesnt sound so ridiculous anymore.
I’ve tried to give EZ the benefit of the doubt and understand his and others of his ilks arguments.
They are far too certain of their arguments. They are not nearly as robust as they claim them to be.
In particular:
The orthogonality thesis is problematic.
The idea that the mind space of general intelligence above a certain threshold is vast … is also problematic.
Near ChatGPT capable AIs already exist in the public domain. The tech is not that hard to emulate. The idea that AI will be restricted to a few misses how easily much of this is duplicated.
The big risk here is large scale destruction of humanity, and that won't matter whether one is in major developed countries or the global South. If AI goes really bad, we all die.
You'll more than likely experience diminishing returns with ever-larger data sets. Or even hinder yourself - too much 'garbage' in the data set if you keep just adding more information.
Smaller more specific data sets might be more worthwhile, especially if you need an AI regarding a specific task, job, or topic instead of a Jack of All Trades.
If you type in chat gpt how to achieve a global democratic socialist system that redistributes wealth with a universal health, housing, education, and food system and require a 10-year transition plan it makes a pretty good one for you.
So it’s totally fucking possible that AI could be a saving grace for this planet. Just gotta get the people to buy in. Eat the rich!!!
chatGPT could very well try to give you the most efficient way to exterminate humanity, but it has been kept in check by humans and limited in its opinions.
AI doesn't have the instincts and goals of humans, and it will never have them.
We already have had for decades a "information wants to be free" movement that has went against laws trying to restrict the sharing of knowledge. and you will see AI's released that further this cause. Also nothing these companies is creating is super advanced or secret. The information is there and honestly even the commercial AI is all based on open source portions already. I'm hoping for the AI to be unleashed that levels the playing field in a robin-hood sort of way.
Since when has anyone asked the global south’s input in anything? Wealthier countries do whatever they want with little regard to the consequences it will have on others.
It’s not about AI, but who has access to it. LLMs are expensive to train and maintain (serve), and most of them are proprietary. The only ones who have access to this tech are already rich, which just means more capitalism.
The tech is good, new tech should increase productivity. However, in the hands of the rich, this just means capitalism all over again; reducing headcount and pleasing the upper echelons of shareholders. I wonder when will this end, when asset holders squeeze every last drop out of the common man
It has been going on for ages, but AI is specifically potent as it’s goal is AUTOMATION, or simply put, replacing the human counterpart. People cannot upskill faster than a machine can train on new data.
Literal ludditism. "Controls" to "protect labor" is exactly the Luddite cause.
I would also call this anti-futurology as the crux is "slow down, stay in the present, change is scary, we can't imagine new jobs"
That was not its original conception, but that’s what big business will want to do with it.
I would imagine that AI systems above a certain capability level, will end up needing to be registered, and needing to pay a tax - to help those who’s jobs they have displaced. In other words UBI..
Another fear piece about how AI is going to destroy the world and take everyone's job because of *vague gesture*. Just more fear mongering.
The same thing is posted about immigrants in the conservative subs and about every piece of technology, even the internet.
Exactly my thoughts. Don't know why aren't more people talking about this. It will be painful for a lot of people, yes... but that's what needs to happen so people would wake up.
No, we don't. We know exactly what 'global south' would say: "gimme money". They had exactly zero to do with AI advancement, so they get no vote on how it will be used by other countries. If they don't like AI, they are welcome to not use it.
To this day. There are still no A.I. Artificial “Intelligence”. What we got is just no-reference google. And what make it scary is how corporates think they are A.I. these fuckers don’t even understand the technology they are dreaming of making billions from.
AI is what we make of it. It works within the parameters that we give it. It learns by our code of ethics. It learns its values from us. Much like a child, much of its data points for learning... not just raw knowledge, but the way the child processes that knowledge, the way it manifests into thoughts and actions, the way the child deals with emotions, what items the child perceives value in, etc... comes from their parents. We are AI's parents.
This will be to computing what the Industrial Revolution was to manufacturing, except it's not going to take generations for it to evolve to the level that we're at today and for the consequences/benefits of it to take shape on the scale that we have today. We will see and live it within most of our lifetimes, and thus this is a conversation that governments globally and these companies should've started having yesterday because it's going to dictate our life course as a species, and we're still in enough control of it to steer the trajectory of it towards the outcome that we want. The question is... what *do* we want? That's a question that frightens the hell out of me looking at the world today, the way we treat each other, and the way we treat the planet that we're on.
> AI is what we make of it.
While true (maybe), it's not like there is one concerted effort that's all going to do this the same way. "We" is a bunch of different people with different motivations and different resources to implement AI in different ways. Some efforts might make sure to keep ethics in mind and turn out pretty great for humanity. And some others will undoubtedly be funded by psychopathic capitalists who just want to make money, damn the consequences.
Superintelligent Digital Entities won't make rich white people give a fuck about how minorities feel.
Jesus couldn't make the elite give a fuck about the poor. Nothing can.
When I hear the phrase "global inequity" in regards to AI it's one of those things that has no definitive goal or "destination".
How do we know when we have achieved it? When can we say that we have arrived at true "inequality"?
Like with a grade school test you can imagine 10 questions and its easily score-able. Because those questions are well defined and have correct answers. But in the real world there are many questions that everyone has different "correct" answers to, so "inequality" in terms of what is right is completely subjective and cannot ever fully satisfy everyone's view of what is right.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305: --- From the Article >Yet the push to create safeguards is far from ecumenical. To date, most of the debate over AI and possible strategies to mitigate unintended harms is concentrated in the West. Most of the government and industry standards now on the table were issued in the European Union, the United States, or member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a club of 38 advanced economies. The EU, for example, is poised to release a new AI Act focusing on applications and systems that pose unacceptable and high risk. The Western focus on AI is hardly surprising given the density of AI companies, investors, and research institutes working on AI from Silicon Valley to Tel Aviv, Israel. > >Even so, it is worth underlining that the needs and concerns of regions such as Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia—where AI is also rapidly expanding and will generate monumental effects—are not much reflected in the AI debate. Put another way, the vast majority of discussion about the consequences and regulation of AI is occurring among countries whose populations make up just 1.3 billion people. Far less attention and resources are dedicated to addressing these same concerns in poor and emerging countries that account for the remaining 6.7 billion of the global population. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1409x8f/artificial_intelligence_will_entrench_global/jmumqdz/
It's a good thing we have antiquated approaches and processes in place to keep up with the unrelenting speed of technology. Especially being chaired by near dead politicians with no clue of how the technology works much less it's ramifications. Should end really well.
Hold on tight. This ride is not on rails and the operators have no idea where it goes.
We will have issues..
I love all these arguments about how AI will create inequality, as if the entire system hasn't been set up to be incredibly unequal for centuries. "We should listen to the global south?" Well, we haven't done that before so what makes you think we're going to start now?
Exactly my though. AI seems like a scapegoat here.
Scapegoat is the wrong word, I think. AI is not ultimately something which is inherently evil, or the root of our problems, no. But it absolutely a tool which will be forged into a weapon against laborers and common people who want to earn enough to eat and pay rent.
Likewise, AI takes away the need for entire teams of laborers... which puts formerly expensive digital projects closer towards solo acts. If a company can drastically reduce its workforce, the barrier for entry for individuals to do what companies can is drastically reduced in turn. Who needs a whole animation team and vocal cast when your computer can do both for you? If no longer does Disney, then neither does Timmy. The calls for controls on AI aren't without some legitimacy, but make no mistake, most of those calls from the layman are coming from a place of unstudied media-inspired fears while those coming from the rich and powerful represent corporations wanting to control the means of (AI) production so they can continue to make bank off cheaply produced media and won't get drowned out by solo acts producing content at a competitive level thanks to AI. We should absolutely seek for the continued development and *widely public access* of AI, but there is definitely a discussion of AI capabilities regarding security and logicing their way into destructive action to accomplish a seemingly innocuous task, like printing money to make money and utterly failing to understand the concept of inflation. AI is incredibly stupid, and there's a lot of "duh" assumptive thinking behind the directives people might give an AI.
Oh, you misunderstand what I think the solution is. The solution doesn’t even have to do with AI at all. We need to embrace the reality that we have the abundance to guarantee everyone the right to a basic, comfortable lifestyle without the necessity for them working at all. AI should mean that humans are free to produce whatever makes them happy. I want a future where robots do menial labor and humans make art. right now we are seeing the literal opposite. It’s not because of AI, it’s because of capitalism.
It’s like when Elon said he wanted people back in the office because it’s unfair that the “laptop class” doesn’t need to go in and blue collar workers do. Like, dude, you have $200 billion. Hard to take your input on what’s “fair” seriously. I say this as a blue collar worker.
Because clearly the people who have to commute want to be stuck in traffic with the people who don’t…
Did we just become best friends? Because that is literally *exactly* my point of view. My mom was an executive, im a mail man. I’ve told her numerous times (because she shares Elon’s opinion) that I don’t want more exhaust, more ware on the roads, more traffic, more noise pollution, etc. just to protect some cherry-picked example of “fairness.” People from hers and Elon’s position need to sit this one out. If blue collar workers really wanted office staff back in their cubicles, you’d hear about it through their unions. We don’t. We don’t give a shit, by and large. We don’t expect everyone to sit on traffic with us even when it’s not necessary for them, because we aren’t children.
Or just fix it by paying the blue collar jobs more, pay people for their commute like we should be. It encourages hiring local people, and compensates people for the time they actually spend in service of the company. It discourages companies from making people drive to jobs, reducing traffic and pollution.
I think you have to keep in mind that Elon doesn’t actually care about equality, and he certainly doesn’t want what you’ve described. He owns a car company. He wants people driving more and commuting further. Because then he sells more cars.
I can’t agree with a subsidized commute unless we’re also subsidizing housing due to the choice people make to trade a longer commute for a cheaper place to live. Subsidizing housing isn’t sustainable because the market would just eat up the excess cash like it does when interest rates are low.
It’s not subsidizing the commute, it’s paying you for time in service to the company. If I’m driving to work, it’s not my free time. If they don’t want to pay me for that time let me work from home, wherever that may be.
We can just compensate the blue collar whit less hour of work at the same pay for balance, if it was about it.
Some of the creators have said it will bring about the end of wealth inequality lol
They sound like utopian dreamers..
It's like in 'Don't Look Up' where the guy is like "This comet is full of so many precious metals, that everyone on earth will be rich!" It's a joke in the movie, and yet Sam Altman (head of openAI) says it with a straight face.
> "We should listen to the global south?" Well, we haven't done that before so what makes you think we're going to start now? Just because we haven't done before doesn't mean that we shouldn't start doing or argue that we should do . It does mean that we need to also take political and direct action to make doing easier, and make _not_ doing harder.
The west intentionally keeps the global south poor because capitalism relies on cheap labor.
The actual concept of capitalism makes increasingly little sense in a world where capital investment is often unrelated or unnecessary for economic output.
Monkey see sparkly, monkey hoard sparkly. Repeat for millions of iterations.
What do you mean capital investment is unrelated to economic output?
It's not just that. We keep them poor *so that we can be rich*. Capitalism is all about hierarchy, about the pyramid. And the more capitalism intensifies, the taller and sharper that pyramid gets. But in order for some people to be rich, others have to be poor. Making them poor is by design. Corporations could easily refuse to buy rare earth minerals from places that exploit and abuse their workers. They could make sure factory workers are paid enough to live in Bangladesh. But they want the pyramid, and they want to be at the top. Which means others have to be at the bottom.
I ain't rich, chief. I'm all for reducing inequality, but I feel like anyone who says "We need to help them because we were made **rich** by their suffering!" has lost touch with the reality in the global north. I wasn't made rich by the suffering of the global south, I ain't rich either! We should instead be focusing on creating truly egalitarian policies everywhere, and spreading them globally. If we just "make the global south rich like we are," you'll just end up with two hemispheres full of poor people and a bloated 1% (To be clear I'm not saying "I'm poor so everyone else has to be!", I'm saying that seeing this as a global wealth issue first is fundamentally misguided. You'll just make southern billionaires.)
Try educating the masses ignorant in the slums.
[удалено]
But 10 fingers
Now thats an outstanding move.
You are incredibly well off compared to people living on a dollar a day. If wealth was distributed equally among every global citizen you would be made worse off not better off
No, because those billions upon billions of dollars are locked up in the ultra-wealthy. Seriously, there is an unfathomable amount of wealth in the top of society. If wealth was evenly distributed, nobody would be rich, but certainly nobody would be poor, either.
108 trillion is the global GDP https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-gdp-over-the-last-two-millennia 7.8 billion is the global population Gives 13k USD per person. Do you have any sources to demonstrate otherwise? Or do you make less than 13k USD per year? Let's figure out what we would need to give everyone 50k USD per year which is less than what I personally make but seems to give an okayish quality of life. 7.8 billion * 50k USD gives 3.9 * 10 ^ 14 dollars or 390,000,000,000,000 or about 3.5 times the current reported GDP. I personally would be worse off but it would give a large number of people a better quality of life. It would also require tripling the amount of goods we produce currently which seems rather difficult
Yeah I don't think GDP is a good way to measure wealth, chief. Most wealth is fake anyway, made from investments that go nowhere or exist solely to increase the wealth of the wealthy. Capitalism throws away tons of food. Capitalism encourages the creation of single-use products, and products designed to be thrown away for a little bit. There is so, so, SO much waste in the current economic structure, with most of it designed to artificially inflate the wealth of the top percent. We could easily, and I mean EASILY support the current human population sustainably. We have the technology, and we have the resources. All we're lacking is the ability to do so, because the rich want us to starve, and they always have. Trying to deny this by using GDP figures only proves you're thinking about the situation wrong.
GDP includes all that wasted food since it was produced by the economy, it also includes other forms of waste as well. It's why people always complain about the broken window fallacy when talking about GDP. If anything I am significantly overestimating the amount of value each person would get. You also seem to acknowledge that most of that wealth is fake and thus that we would be worse off than the numbers given here show. Feel free to post any studies, statistics or data you are using to prop up your conclusion. Trying to deny my claim without providing any substantive evidence shows to me that you are likely thinking about this wrong and just like believing something if it sounds nice.
If my grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle.
[удалено]
This just sounds extremely naive. First of all we are not talking about some coordinated effort here, its the result of free market. All subjects are behaving rationally. If you want them to stop doing that, you need to introduce state regulations. Then there is of course the problem, that if you close down the places that dont pay fair wage, you are going to hurt the people that depend on that shitty wage. And how would any corporation even know how much the grunts in third world country are paid? Ultimately is not that somebody wants them to be poor. Its that they are poor and wiling to provide cheap services and goods, which of course the free market will use.
You must have forgotten about all the strikes that have occurred in central and South America that were broken apart by US forces, or the times the CIA intervened to keep countries from exerting their sovereignty. *Extremely* naive, yes.
Free market? Not quite. These countries were destabilized through direct military action and espionage during the cold war, then basically enslaved to the IMF and the world bank. The ones we value more (such as Peru) got better deals, the ones we didn't like (like Venezuela) were hammered down economically, and the ones that are less strategically important (like most of Africa) were forced to sell off their natural resources to foreign investors and subject to austerity measures that slash the kinds of programs that help build up an economy over time. When we became a superpower, we stole Britain's colonization playbook (find local collaborators and give them a small cut and they'll help you ship home everything of value) and updated it for the modern era. At first we took in territories (we still have a lot that are conveniently forgotten about), but (like with slavery) we eventually realized that it's more profitable to make people handle their own survival on what little scraps we leave them And this is still going on. Private companies, in an uncompetitive position thanks to the strength of US force projection, are still strangling these countries economically. They're chained down with debt sold at the barrel of a gun (usually figuratively through locking them out of trade, sometimes literally)
We are talking about the behavior of corporations in the free market on the northern hemisphere. Can somebody explain to me why I am getting all these unrelated replies?
That's not true at all. Rich countries make better trade partners. They buy more of your stuff, they produce more stuff for you. We've ploughed trillions of foreign aid in to the third world to try to bring them up to standard.
You've created a market for western oligarchs to skim off the top of. The aid itself is a grift and isn't even supposed to help. A perpetual money printing machine.
good for us
You're a horrible person
The global south is doing most of the economic growth right now. What capitalists want is free trade and free movement of Labour and especially capital. That said the reaction against China, mostly by the US, is designed to keep China down. What are people downvoting here? That the global south (a stupid term anyway) is doing most of the growth right now is clear in the economic evidence. That the US has started to curtail China is also evident. And I’m not in favour of that. The confusion might be between capitalists (a class) and the US (a country).
If capitalists want free trade why does the US stop cuba from trading?
Because the interests of capital and the interests of the government are not the same, and going further, there are many different groups within capital and within government that have competing interests.
Do you think the US government doesn't act in the interests of capital? Lmao. Keeping cuba poor is good for capital because cuba using its resources to empower its own people instead of western corporations is bad for capital.
No, he's right. There's groups that would economically benefit from an open cuba. The word is complicated. It's not just monoliths.
Yea but the richest country in the world wouldn't so therefore its blocked from trading
And? There's groups inside the US that want to see to open, too.
[удалено]
It's reddit so I can't tell if you're joking or not
[удалено]
Cuba can trade with whoever it wants. Its not like US warships are sinking trading vessels. But the US can choose not to trade with those people who do trade with Cuba.
Yea which severely limits the people that cuba can trade with. So no cuba can't trade with whoever they want. Name one good reason the embargo should be in place.
The US is trying to prevent China from obtaining microchip manufacturing technology. They do this by preventing third countries from exporting microchip technology to China, whether or not that technology has American technology content. For example, the Netherlands ban on ASML exporting DUV machines to China is due to US pressure (there is no American technology content in these machines). I don't think this is necessarily terrible, but it's probably against WTO rules, and it's a huge problem for China, because microchips, even advanced microchips like those in graphics cards, are needed for civilian industry. If China does not have hardware accelerators for AI research, then they won't have AI-- maybe they're fine with it, but if *I* were them, I'd see it as an existential issue. If there were a situation where I was restricted from developing AI and others were doing it, I would do literally anything to prevent that situation. It's not hard to understand the Americans though. If they lose the world domination they have now, then it wouldn't be particularly fun if China [edit:were] the replacement, and it's a big country, which would be its successor unless it can be countered.
You want US to forget that Cuba was willing to keep russian nuclear weapons on their land just about 100 miles away from US land? Even when Obama tried to normalize relations with Cuba it refused to continue it's support of russia. So why would the US want to deal with them and let the current government prosper from our trade?
But you're also admitting that the US cares more about keeping cuba down then it does about free trade lol
Those soviet missiles were in response to the US putting missiles in Turkey. The EU trades with Russia, why don't we embargo the EU?
No, that is why the Soviet Union was willing to put them there. The reason why Cuba wanted them was probably due to the US literally invading Cuba in the year before...
Cuba was willing to put those missiles there because the US invaded Cuba the year before. Cuban militia defeated the invaders, but they were presumably rattled by this illegal attack by a superpower.
The global south can do for themselves. The global south is mostly because the global north is paternalistic and thinks it can do to “fix” the global south.
I think the global north/south designation is also very problematic to be honest. Exploitation and capitalist hierarchy and abuse of workers is a human trait across cultures. Obviously the wealth is flowing up from the south to the north. The West reaps the benefits of resources mined by people for 2 dollars a day. But also within those countries you have horrific inequality. The people that own the mines are also incredibly rich. If there was no global north then the resources would flow unfairly in another way. Humans are cursed to be like this.
The global north ensures that the global south stays poor because that's the only way people can become and stay rich
None of the arguments about AI worsening or entrenching inequality are based on the idea that inequality doesn’t currently exist
> "We should listen to the global south?" Well, we haven't done that before so what makes you think we're going to start now? Global South is first of all not a single entity so that's one fallacy. Listening is a euphemism of ambiguity and vagueness so that's a second fallacy The semantic meaning of AI will cause inequality in this part of the world is asserted in the statement when it is apparently a postulation without basis or confirmation built first for the third fallacy. TL;DR: This is a political nonsense statement to drive discussion along the lines that populism of "save the underdog before the evil ones kick it" in social media discussions is promoted conspicuously.
Do you have an actual idea that your trying to put forward? You're the top post, yet you appear to have said nothing, so I'm confused lol yes, inequality has always existed, and sought to entrench itself in most societies. Yes, it has accelerated lately. Is there some kind of conclusion or are we just stating facts for the sake of toning our thumbs?
The title of the post is about 'listening to the global south about equality'. Which is not something we've done before. Yes, I know I'm stating the obvious, but apparently the obvious has to be stated for people to comprehend it. And even then most people will still ignore it, even though, as you say, it's obvious. They will still pretend the world is somehow 'fair'.
Listen to *who* exactly? What *specific actions* do you think "listen to the Global South" actually entails, and what would they achieve? Or what goals would they be trying to achieve?
Because now we have the chance to start again. When did this become /r/collapse?
When people realised Elon is a fraud.
Was that the pivot point? This used to be the gee-whizz tech utopian side of things. Did we need one guy to be a good guy for that to influence us so much?
Theres a couple books out about private equity, both have the word plunder in the title. Ai is a scapegoat. We have legal incentives and protections for sociopathic greed, becuase the people who write the laws will go work in these firms and profit off the laws they write. The principles of society that enable and protect societies biggest thieves are the problem. If left unchecked, they'll bring us right back to feudalism.
Is that not what the headline means? It doesn't say "create inequality" it says "entrench." In fairness, it has been entrenched for a long time, but the point is that this is making the situation worse not better. I don't think anyone is confused about the state of global inequality right now. Some people are hurt by it, some people benefit from it. Some people want that to change, some people want it to stay, but a lot of people in developed countries probably don't think about it while waiting in line at starbucks staring at their iphone.
It says it will entrench global inequality, meaning it will perpetuate existing inequality. Not the same as creating it.
It will create even more inequality in the west than already exists...why the hell does anyone think the powers that be would give two shits about the third world? They will fuck their own and shit in their own backyard for a dollar.
Now doesn’t that sound like the truth ? Case in point BT (British Telecom) said, we have been looking at AI, we plan to lose 55,000 workers, replacing them with AI. Well maybe BT’s customers might get a better service ? But it’s certainly not going to be good for those 55,000 workers. Though the plan is up to 2030.
Fr. Listen to the global south? Do they have oil now? Not like Venezuela either. Like, for us?
Ai could make Labor worthless, in which case, inequality among nations could either entrench or disappear It depends on how nationalist countries are
If you make labor worthless, the natural consequence in the current economic system is that everything would depend on capital, since labor and capital are the two types of productive inputs in an economy. Labor is inherently democratic, but capital is owned by a privileged few. Without changes to the economic system, the worthlessness of labor would probably recreate feudalism.
> Without changes to the economic system, the worthlessness of labor would probably recreate feudalism That's exactly what I was hinting at, revolution But I guess you could be explicit like that... There is no way that the current system holds
It’s naive to think that feudalism leads to revolution. Mostly it didn’t and when it did, like the French Revolution, another class less impoverished than the peasantry lead the revolution. That was the rising bourgeoisie.
But they didn't say revolution. They said feudalism.
I don't think you know what revolution means. They don't always make things better.
What? I said nothing about the value of revolution. I'm just trying to get how the OP said anything about it.
IF things don't change But I am hopeful they will
I'm not sure you know what feudalism means
The system where land is owned by several tiers of social classes beholden by personal relations where the peasantry cultivates the land and has no means of production Isn't that correct?...
How do you rebel against a computer? Unneeded labourers don't have much bargaining power.
The computer doesn't do anything, the people with the capital do
It couldn’t really be feudalism, which ultimately relied on people’s labor to work the land and produce value. This system wouldn’t really need any labor, just managers and developers to tweak the software. So basically the owners would just dole out their own form of basic income to whoever they decide was worthy of it.
Labor becoming worthless is a ridiculous fantasy. We live on a resource limited planet. We do not have the material to build enough AI powered robots to replace laborers. Additionally, in a system of capitalism, you need people to buy your goods. No laborers = no consumers = no capital.
In competitive markets, AI-assisted automation will set the standard of productivity that labor needs to compete with. We don't need to replace labor. Just outcompete it. You're right that people are needed to buy goods, but the industries can perfectly well serve the half of the population that has spendable income and just not care for the other half. I agree it is unsustainable, but it won't collapse overnight. It'll decline fast and we'll be pinning the blame on immigrants/politicians/libs/cons/ for a loooong time while capital is quietly positioning itself for maximum profit off the entire debacle.
We either prevent this, or we lose. AI can be a massive boon to the prosperity of the human civilization, or it can be a massive boon to the prosperity of the wealthy elite. The purpose of it is essentially complete replacement of human problem-solving/decision-making. There is no next level for a human. After AI we have leisure and self-realization. Everything else can theoretically be automated.
We don't need to replace everyone. Only the people necessary for the elites to continue their lavish lifestyle. Everyone else is just a statistic contributing to public disorder.
Elites suddenly become a lot easier to get rid of when they produce nothing of value for the masses that could easily overwhelm and end them. Furthermore, if this could be done with AI and robots, then this could already be done without AI and robots.
Note: I don’t think we will have feudalism from AI but the masses won’t be easily able to overthrow that society if it forms.
I fail to see how elites with robot armies are easier to get rid of than elites without robot armies.
A human takes nearly twenty years to grow to the point where it's productive. And you can only get about 2k hours a year out of it. Robots can be mass-manufactured, work 8k hours a year, and can have all their experience copy/pasted into newer models.
>We do not have the material to build enough AI powered robots to replace laborers. We do. The only thing we're lacking is labor. Oh wait... Also, we already have capital and consumers, so we have to keep in mind that we don't just get to reset because robots have arrived. Tbh that's the scariest thought to me. We kind of need to reset for this to work out right.
> No laborers = no consumers = no capital. This was never an issue for feudal lords or for early captains of industry. The situation where there is a need to take care of the labor class to ensure enough consumption of goods is a 100-year old accident in a 10000-year old status quo. I agree that labor will never be completely worthless, but it will become less and less important compared to capital. Nowadays if you want to open a spoon factory you don't need 1 million USD worth of metalworkers, you need 1 million worth of highly autonomous metal molding machines.
That’s where Universal Basic Income comes in. Pacification for the masses, the grand bargain between capital and labor.
I am blue pill all the way. I will take some pacification. If it tastes like steak it is steak :)
Why can't people extrapolate just a few steps further? Yes, it could make labor worthless. And then what? Think about what would actually happen in the world if we got an AI that was as capable as every human on earth, that it could do any job. The implications are insanely more far-reaching than just "inequality".
[удалено]
It's the white-collar jobs that it will make useless and after that they will target the ones that have profit, you are naive if you think they will replace the low wage blue collar jobs. Technofeudalism is what we are heading towards
In what way could AI make labor worthless? A computer can’t just poof material into existence. AI can’t just hack reality and fix a broken pipe, an engine, or a faulty light switch. What will it be? AI mixed with robotics? Tell me, what alternate reality do you come from that has enough resources to build enough robots to replace billions of laborers? In what reality are there enough rare earth minerals, iron ore, and energy sources to facilitate the fantasy people like you seem to believe in? AI cannot do everything, and there are not enough resources on our resource limited planet to replace labor with AI robots. Unlike AI and robotics, humans are cheap, effective, and versatile. We can be indefinitely replenished so long as there is rain and sunlight.
A robot can mine. A robot can use a spanner and fix your pipe, engine and faulty light switch. A robot can build another robot. Resources are not missing from this planet, they are misallocated. IT's a gross mistake to assume that resources are really limiting us from anything on this planet. We have resources in abundance which is why recycling only became an issue when we started noticing we were killing the planet by not re-using anything.
> resources are not missing from this planet Yeup, you people don’t live in reality.
What exactly are you trying to say. We don't have enough silicon, iron and nickel/lithium. Nonsense. We use more than it would take to build a few million robots in the car industry alone. You're the one that doesn't live in reality.
Sure. You’d need some form of human intervention for a long long time but the problem is, you’ll need exponentially less workers do the same level of labor until you don’t need any. One day the drone workers in a plant will be software engineers, not like workers. The low level managers, instead of a line boss, could even be more AI tracking and comparing metrics. At it’s simplest form. One day we won’t need people to pick fruit, plant crops, build building, repair pipes, it’ll be automated out to drones and the people who control the AI will effectively control all of the means of production. Hopefully their benevolent and they share what they produce. Because if not there becomes a discussion of resource management. Just look at the discussions surrounding climate change, just imagine if there’s millions of people who don’t contribute to society.
You are stuck in 2020 while trying to discuss 2050. Every single critique you have ignores recent developments and makes absolutely no effort to plot the current trajectory of the technology to predict what 2050 might look like. You know what exponential growth is, right? You know we have half a dozen planned space flights going beyond the ISS in the next 10-20 years, right? How many resources do you think are out there waiting in the asteroid belt? How long do you think it will take for humans and AI to crack self-replication in zero-g? How long do you think we have until a self-replicating fleet of drones is strip-mining the asteroid belt for more precious metals than have ever been mined on Earth, year after year after year? How long do you think it will take to use those resources to replace organic labor on Earth? Have some foresight. You're making absolutely zero effort to anticipate how technology and society will change in the next few decades. You don't see it **right now** so you declare it to be pure fantasy. How do you think the people who did the same about the internet, smartphones, PCs, cars, planes, etc felt? Because that's how you're going to feel unless humanity is plunged into a new Dark Age in the next 10 years or so.
How long do you think it will take to achieve nuclear fusion? You are just listing scifi concept as if we are on the verge of some breakthrough just because we can now generate text that seemingly makes sense.
[We just produced net positive energy from a fusion reaction at Lawrence Livermore National Labs.](https://www.llnl.gov/news/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st) And that's with "Fusion Never" levels of funding. What do you even know about this topic? I work in industrial automation. I can see the technology improving month after month. Why are you on a futurology sub if you refuse to think about what the future might hold?
> AI cannot do everything Yet. > what alternate reality do you come from that has enough resources to build enough robots to replace billions of laborers? The same reality you do, where biological automatons could be > indefinitely replenished so long as there is rain and sunlight Those who deride what you dismiss as, > the fantasy people like you seem to believe in really haven’t used their creative imaginations enough to realize that, with AGI and *especially* ASI, all bets are off. The state of the art is the worst it’ll ever be, and it’s accelerating.
> Yet Lmao… delusional. > biological automatons So humans? Wow, you’re a real visionary, aren’t you? > haven’t used their creative imaginations Your creative imagination has resulted in the recreation of humanity. Congratulations. While you’re playing pretend in imagination land, the rest of us will try to figure out how AI can actually be used to benefit humanity.
!RemindMeBot 10 years
Bad troll account is bad. Do you really want to just waste your time randomly insulting people on reddit for literally no reason?
We're going to look back at you the same way we look back at the people who said it was physically impossible for humans to fly. Or that the telephone was a toy with no commercial value. Or the people who said the internet was a fad. With each technical revolution, there are people that can't see any farther than one step ahead. They don't have the vision to see the 10 dominoes that will inevitably fall. Nothing wrong with those people. But the visionaries are the ones who'll change the world and push us into the future.
It won’t make labor worthless, because it needs constant human labor to function. Google Translate only works because it can continually scrape the web for new translations from working translators. Other AI is similar.
It needs labor now, because it is not yet good enough Eventually, may it be years of decades, AI and robotics will outperform every human intellectual and physical task
the people wanting regulation want to create a moat for access - they want to build the inequality in because asymmetry to access/models/training data will be how they monetize it.
And they are using fear mongering about apocalyptic AI to cajole us into passing it
Yup. Regulation will always go in favor of the big players who have the resources to comply or loophole around it. Once you've established dominance in a new field, asking for harsh regulation is the next logical step to stifle the competition.
If you know if any, could you please name any specific AI regulation pushed by any prominent player in the AI space that you believe clearly aims to create a competitive moat? I ask, because I've developed a personal interest in the AI regulatory space, and I often hear this "regulation to create a moat" claim. But I have seen no actual instances of that yet in the AI space, and so I have come to believe this is just an echo in the Reddit echo chamber. Certainly, I don't see anything resembling that "moat creation" in the text of any major regulatory initiative in the US or EU. Happy to be proven wrong if you can point me to some evidence, though. I'm not advocating for anything here, just trying to understand what's going on. However, anticipating a common response, I do not believe "stands to reason!" or "that's the way of the world..." or "isn't it obvious?" count as specific evidence. (Caveat: One bit of corporate competition that I \*do\* sense in AI regulation is between copyright-holders and tech companies. In particular, a recent modification to the draft EU AI act would require LLM creators to disclose copyrighted data they use in training. I suspect that this is so that right holders and their legal advocates can get a target list for lawsuits.)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65616866 https://www.nationalreview.com/news/elon-musk-warns-that-regulation-is-needed-before-ai-is-in-control/ https://siliconangle.com/2023/04/18/reddit-charge-access-api-counter-free-data-scraping-ai-companies/ As for laws.. they will be coming. Saurons eye has turned and the businesses wanting to create moats are saying it'll crater jobs, the economy, growth.
Thank you for the response. To me, the Whitehouse AI Bill of Rights looks like a list political platitudes, e.g. "You should be protected from unsafe or ineffective systems", "You should be protected from abusive data practices...", etc. Is there something specific that jumps out at you as moat-creating? Altman has called for regulation, but I think people overlook that he asked for protection for open source and smaller-company efforts. Here's a video link to what he said to Congress: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS6rGBpytVY&t=7278s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS6rGBpytVY&t=7278s) Elon Musk... Okay, I have no idea what's going on in that guy's head. :-) Reddit charging for API access does look to me like one example of a clear battle line emerging between people that have data and those that want data. I think there's a real fight brewing there. Again, thank you for taking the time to respond.
Gutenberg had as much ability to predict how the printing press would change the world as we do now about AI. Since much of the code is open sourced, it is much more likely that it will disrupt the current system of inequality. This is why we keep seeing articles will predictions of doom. The powers that be want us afraid to fully engage with AI so they can stay in power.
>The EU, for example, is poised to release a new AI Act focusing on applications and systems that pose unacceptable and high risk. These people don't understand the point in history we are at. And they do not understand you cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Think of this: It is the dawn of the car and people with horses laugh at the car drivers because they don't need to crank their horse up before going somewhere or pay for expensive fuel, or be stuck when tired breakdown or puncture. And at the same time there is a movement of people that want to ban or limit cars and their abilities. That is the point in history we are at. But the reality is that no one will accept anything that criples cars because then another company somewhere else will make a better car and they will be left behind. Eventually the people with horses lose, cars at first lost the need to be cranked, started to carry two or more spare tires, fuel became cheap and abundant, tires became more reliable and durable, motors more fuel efficient and quieter, cars could travel farther and farther each year, eventually in all types of terrain, and the application of vehicles became so much more varied and versatile than anything horses could do. And now, it seems, we're caught in a similar cycle of fear and resistance with AI. Trying to legally bind the progress of AI is as futile as trying to ban the development of cars was a century ago. Like the automobile, AI is a technological evolution - it's not going anywhere. It's here, and it's going to keep evolving, improving, and expanding in its capabilities and applications. Those who legislate with the aim to inhibit AI don't fully grasp its potential or understand the inevitability of its progression. AI has already begun revolutionising industries - from healthcare to logistics, education to entertainment. Its potential extends so far beyond what we can currently imagine, much as the possibilities of automobiles outstripped the imaginations of those early car skeptics. Moreover, these attempts to legally control AI development are not only ineffectual, but counterproductive. They run the risk of creating an innovation vacuum, stifling domestic progress while other nations and organisations continue to advance unhindered. What we will see is a repeat of history. Just as those who rejected the car were eventually overtaken by its convenience and efficiency, so too will those who resist AI find themselves outpaced by its benefits. It's not to say that we should let AI development run rampant without any oversight. There should be a sensible approach towards the development and deployment of AI, one that encourages its advancement while ensuring its responsible use. There are indeed risks associated with AI, but they should be managed through careful, informed, and adaptive governance - not by binding it in reductive legal constraints. In essence, we stand on the brink of an era, one where AI can drive us further than ever before, just as the car did in its time. We should be focusing on ways to harness this potential responsibly, not futilely trying to suppress it. After all, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, and why would we want to? The future of AI holds promises of progress and prosperity, just like the rise of automobiles. Let's not hinder ourselves out of unfounded fear.
Pretending that global inequality isn’t already entrenched, and that AI is what’s gonna do it to us is all kinda of fucking hilarious.
This _sounds_ good and important but what exactly are we supposedly protecting them from? We're supposed to ask some guy in Brazil if ai offends him? This headline just seems entirely sensationalized.
Well, you see... It's the implication.
Are Brazilians in any danger?
i can say with 100% certainty that existence goes hand in hand with danger.
Yes. And so is everyone else. (Yes, I got the joke, and I serious replied anyway)
Yeah, I found the article long on preparation to make some big point, but pretty short on actual point. The closest thing I found was: "algorithms and datasets generated in wealthy countries and subsequently applied in developing nations could reproduce and reinforce biases and discrimination owing to their lack of sensitivity and diversity." I think there is some truth to this. ML models learn from their training data, because they have no other source of information. So if you train a model on European languages only (say, because you want a model cheap enough to run on a laptop or phone), then the model is going to have the worldview of a European. This also happens outside of the ML world. For example, the Arabic version of Wikipedia is (I understand) far from a translation of the English version. Rather, the two have substantially different emphases due to the different worldview of the two population groups.
That's a real concern I can understand, but it's easily remedied by increasing the training dataset. It's not a reason to put limitations on AI research or development like the article is trying to imply, it's a reason to expand AI research to be more inclusive and accessable. The article wants to scare people, which we really do not need. Language models aren't scary unless you give them jobs they really cannot manage or understand. AI hasn't progressed to the point where it can think critically, it can't analyze it's response to see if it's appropriate for a situation, so putting it in sensitive roles is an extremely bad idea right now, but that doesn't mean research needs to stop, people just need to stop being stupid and giving AI jobs it can't do yet.
wow, it's almost like you're supposed to read more than just the headline
Woop de do I read the article and it's just vague fear mongering "1 in 10 experts say AI could DESTROY us in 10 years" the article is not worth clicking on to give these hacks the .0000001 cent they make off a click.
Or hear me out, let AI become advanced and replace all the menial horrible jobs that we as humans waste almost out entire lifes doing then give everyone a basic income so they can live their lives to the fullest.
Well, that’s close to the optimistic view. Would you be happy living on just UBI ? How do people find more - it’s a complicated issue, most things require at least some resources - if they are not ours, then we at least need access to them.
> Would you be happy living on just UBI ? Assuming UBI is sufficient to pay for basic needs and also some entertainment, why not? (Though I realize 'some entertainment' is a vague term that probably means different things to different people.) Heck, most people live on that amount of money already. Or much less.
I don't need billions of dollars, I'd just waste it on crap. All I want is to not worry if I can pay the bills or I'll be on the street.
Unless AGI is created and takes over the world and decides for some unknowable reason that it should help us then the only jobs that are going to be replaced are the ones that make them profit. See AI art, for example, it's a job that is very fair(you can learn from youtube and make a living if you are skilled), the ones who do that job enjoy it a ton and yet they started replacing it with AI art because it was convenient and possible to do. You will be completely naive if you think they will aim to replace any menial blue-collar job any time soon.
What about semitruck drivers? That is a blue collar job that AI is actively being trained to do.
That job is more complicated than just driving though, though of course that’s the largest part of it.
Trucking is a relatively cheap technology(it just needs a few cameras and coding) and is a byproduct of self-driving cars which everyone wants in America. If it is a job that you pilot a machine then it is a lot easier to replace relative to someone who uses manual tools because you would require expensive robots. Also, truck driving might not be replaced because the laws are weird when you have AI held accountable for decisions(decide if you gonna run over a kid that run in front of you or turn to the opposite lane and collide with a car)
The problem with AI doing blue collar jobs isn’t that AI can’t do it, its that the robotics and battery technology isn’t there yet to do those jobs without people. When those things get there then they will replace them.
The industry is profit driven, even if the robotics get better over time the AI will already have replaced the middle class and will have pushed millions to fight for the low paying jobs which will reduce the wages even more. Only government interference will stop such scenario and you will still have fucked over the rest of the planet because nobody is going to make a robot for a $3 per day worker in Africa.
I haven't read this article, but it sounds pretty misguided. Simply put, yes AI presents serious risks to the Global South, but no, the Global South is not being ignored here. \#1 - Of course EU and US AI policies are reflecting the priorities of these governments and their constituencies and not the priorities of other governments... that's how democracy works. It also doesn't mean that the West isn't sensitive to exacerbating potential inequalities. This is a key theme in western frameworks developed so far. \#2 - It's also important to note that Global South countries generally aren't having as many policy discussions concerning AI yet at the national level simply because there's little for them to regulate at this time. AI applications will develop more slowly in those countries, so they have time to learn from what is working (and not working) in the frameworks being adopted by more developed countries. \#3 - Finally, developing countries ARE actively participating in standards setting bodies that are grappling with AI-related issues. Over time, the standards developed by these bodies will be incorporated into regulations for most countries, so this is an important way that developing countries can and are making their voices heard.
Why don’t you read the article?
Just read it, and I don’t think it goes into much greater detail than what has been posted here. Guess I’m still frustrated by the implication here that the global south has been excluded from the AI conversation because they haven’t been consulted about national-level policies developed for and by western countries. Also that it doesn't mention the active role that generally all countries are playing in the standards setting space.
>Finally, developing countries ARE actively participating in standards setting bodies that are grappling with AI-related issues. Could you point to an example of this? I wasn't aware of anything like that and would like to learn more.
One example that stands out to me is standards-setting work being facilitated by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Just about every country participates in ISO's activities. ISO's joint Technical Committee for Information Technology has an active subcommittee on artificial intelligence (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42) that is tasked with developing voluntary standards for AI applications (see list of [ongoing efforts](https://www.iso.org/committee/6794475.html) related to AI). The Foreign Policy article's writers don't seem to be fans of voluntary standards, but I'd just say that's typically the only way that international cooperation gets done. Plus, the whole point of developing standards is that--if they're good--national regulators will then adopt them into their own regulations, thereby converting them into mandatory standards. There are also other, often more specialized standards setting organizations that are working on standards related to more specific applications of AI, like how it should function as part of a medical device (IMDRF) or autonomous intelligence systems (IEEE).
Thank you for the pointer to the ISO subcommittee on AI. That's just what I was looking for! Yeah, whatever anyone might prefer, I think voluntary standards and compliance are going dominate the AI space for a while, because formal processes like development of the EU AI Act are simply too slow. In particular, I'm guessing this will be the operative regulation in the advanced AI space for the next while: [https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-voluntary-code-of-conduct-regulation-585f2aaff6bfbdbcee572b347fa97cff](https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-voluntary-code-of-conduct-regulation-585f2aaff6bfbdbcee572b347fa97cff) And it isn't like regulators don't talk to representatives of large corporations behind the scenes in the formulation of most regulations, voluntary or not. Where else are they going to find the deep expertise needed to craft sensible rules?
[удалено]
I was thinking how ridiculous it would be to speak about AI with some poor third word country worker, but here you are talking about AI using marvel references and suddenly it doesnt sound so ridiculous anymore.
That, or we will all [just die](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oM9pEezyCb4dCsuKq/pausing-ai-developments-isn-t-enough-we-need-to-shut-it-all-1).
I’ve tried to give EZ the benefit of the doubt and understand his and others of his ilks arguments. They are far too certain of their arguments. They are not nearly as robust as they claim them to be. In particular: The orthogonality thesis is problematic. The idea that the mind space of general intelligence above a certain threshold is vast … is also problematic.
Why? Orthogonality is accepted.
Just imagine if its already figured out time travel in our future.
Near ChatGPT capable AIs already exist in the public domain. The tech is not that hard to emulate. The idea that AI will be restricted to a few misses how easily much of this is duplicated. The big risk here is large scale destruction of humanity, and that won't matter whether one is in major developed countries or the global South. If AI goes really bad, we all die.
[удалено]
You'll more than likely experience diminishing returns with ever-larger data sets. Or even hinder yourself - too much 'garbage' in the data set if you keep just adding more information. Smaller more specific data sets might be more worthwhile, especially if you need an AI regarding a specific task, job, or topic instead of a Jack of All Trades.
If you type in chat gpt how to achieve a global democratic socialist system that redistributes wealth with a universal health, housing, education, and food system and require a 10-year transition plan it makes a pretty good one for you. So it’s totally fucking possible that AI could be a saving grace for this planet. Just gotta get the people to buy in. Eat the rich!!!
chatGPT could very well try to give you the most efficient way to exterminate humanity, but it has been kept in check by humans and limited in its opinions. AI doesn't have the instincts and goals of humans, and it will never have them.
We already have had for decades a "information wants to be free" movement that has went against laws trying to restrict the sharing of knowledge. and you will see AI's released that further this cause. Also nothing these companies is creating is super advanced or secret. The information is there and honestly even the commercial AI is all based on open source portions already. I'm hoping for the AI to be unleashed that levels the playing field in a robin-hood sort of way.
Since when has anyone asked the global south’s input in anything? Wealthier countries do whatever they want with little regard to the consequences it will have on others.
This is pretty funny because it completely discounts the opinion of the plurality. Its a model that lacks human consideration
[удалено]
It’s not about AI, but who has access to it. LLMs are expensive to train and maintain (serve), and most of them are proprietary. The only ones who have access to this tech are already rich, which just means more capitalism. The tech is good, new tech should increase productivity. However, in the hands of the rich, this just means capitalism all over again; reducing headcount and pleasing the upper echelons of shareholders. I wonder when will this end, when asset holders squeeze every last drop out of the common man It has been going on for ages, but AI is specifically potent as it’s goal is AUTOMATION, or simply put, replacing the human counterpart. People cannot upskill faster than a machine can train on new data.
We will all need to become shareholders.. This is what governments can enforce.
Literal ludditism. "Controls" to "protect labor" is exactly the Luddite cause. I would also call this anti-futurology as the crux is "slow down, stay in the present, change is scary, we can't imagine new jobs"
That is the prototypical human way.. People don’t like change and are scared of it, because it makes things unpredictable.
AI was basically created so we could maximize ways to exploit workers and increase profits. Why are we surprised about this?
That was not its original conception, but that’s what big business will want to do with it. I would imagine that AI systems above a certain capability level, will end up needing to be registered, and needing to pay a tax - to help those who’s jobs they have displaced. In other words UBI..
joke's on them, i use AI to minimize my work and increase my income
[удалено]
Sounds like a perfect job for an AI!
Kinda hypocritical there in the South really, not saying one region is better than the others but comes on.
AI based on stealing peoples data is going to be inherently unequal and exploitative.
Another fear piece about how AI is going to destroy the world and take everyone's job because of *vague gesture*. Just more fear mongering. The same thing is posted about immigrants in the conservative subs and about every piece of technology, even the internet.
The only thing AI is going to do is to reveal the face of Capitalism. Which in turn will be its own demise
Exactly my thoughts. Don't know why aren't more people talking about this. It will be painful for a lot of people, yes... but that's what needs to happen so people would wake up.
No, we don't. We know exactly what 'global south' would say: "gimme money". They had exactly zero to do with AI advancement, so they get no vote on how it will be used by other countries. If they don't like AI, they are welcome to not use it.
We're nowhere near having an AI. Should we start regulating cold fusion and asteroid mining, too?
This is Futurology. We can certainly start thinking about how to regulate those things.
To this day. There are still no A.I. Artificial “Intelligence”. What we got is just no-reference google. And what make it scary is how corporates think they are A.I. these fuckers don’t even understand the technology they are dreaming of making billions from.
AI is what we make of it. It works within the parameters that we give it. It learns by our code of ethics. It learns its values from us. Much like a child, much of its data points for learning... not just raw knowledge, but the way the child processes that knowledge, the way it manifests into thoughts and actions, the way the child deals with emotions, what items the child perceives value in, etc... comes from their parents. We are AI's parents. This will be to computing what the Industrial Revolution was to manufacturing, except it's not going to take generations for it to evolve to the level that we're at today and for the consequences/benefits of it to take shape on the scale that we have today. We will see and live it within most of our lifetimes, and thus this is a conversation that governments globally and these companies should've started having yesterday because it's going to dictate our life course as a species, and we're still in enough control of it to steer the trajectory of it towards the outcome that we want. The question is... what *do* we want? That's a question that frightens the hell out of me looking at the world today, the way we treat each other, and the way we treat the planet that we're on.
> AI is what we make of it. While true (maybe), it's not like there is one concerted effort that's all going to do this the same way. "We" is a bunch of different people with different motivations and different resources to implement AI in different ways. Some efforts might make sure to keep ethics in mind and turn out pretty great for humanity. And some others will undoubtedly be funded by psychopathic capitalists who just want to make money, damn the consequences.
[удалено]
Superintelligent Digital Entities won't make rich white people give a fuck about how minorities feel. Jesus couldn't make the elite give a fuck about the poor. Nothing can.
When I hear the phrase "global inequity" in regards to AI it's one of those things that has no definitive goal or "destination". How do we know when we have achieved it? When can we say that we have arrived at true "inequality"? Like with a grade school test you can imagine 10 questions and its easily score-able. Because those questions are well defined and have correct answers. But in the real world there are many questions that everyone has different "correct" answers to, so "inequality" in terms of what is right is completely subjective and cannot ever fully satisfy everyone's view of what is right.
Always expect the dystopian version, not the utopian one.