Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…
What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!
Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…
What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!
Still listening to the show, but I have to say: this is a much more balanced debate. Thanks to Paris and Jeff (JEFF!) to push back on Leo’s (played?) AI optimism!
Especially when Jeff drilled down on what is actually to be won from AI and Leo escaping to either vagueness or the value of “HER”… Granted - basic research (and we’re kind of in the phase of that for AI) does not have to immediately generate any sort of usable result, and it costs a lot of money, and you cannot go anywhere without it.
The problem with AI, here, in my mind, is that basic research and applied research are happening on top of each other, simultaneously. This is new. We usually did one thing after the other. You cannot invent the aeroplane and, at the same time, make it a mass commodity - TOO MUCH RISK! We’re doing this with AI right now. If AI turns out to be consequential, this is A LOT OF RISK - if it turns out to be a fad, it’s just money burned.
Where I always hoped the discussion would stay on course is that “value” always starts out in the discussions as societal value - this is going to be a great leap for mankind! - then there is pushback. Next phase, one step smaller: “value” is tried as personal use - this is going to be HER and that would be useful! (or: sooo coool!) - then there is pushback. Next phase, one step smaller: “value” is tried as commercial and profitability - you’d better be investing now! - then there is pushback. Final phase, last step: “What do you care if investors lose their money if it fails?” - And THAT’S precisely the issue with rampant tech oligarchy: Investors could have poured that money into ACTUAL problems we KNOW we have today. It’s a resource discussion. If you have everything from an environmental catastrophe looming, social inequality, health(care) crises, political extremism, institutional decline, international unrest, depleting resources, etc. etc. etc., we should not really be spending TRILLIONS on tech that might generate HER while exacerbating resource waste, to fight an international competition, to probably further cement social inequality, etc. etc. etc.
The US has 780’000 homeless people. With 500’000’000’000 USD, you could end homelessness (pay rent for five years until people are back on their feet) and have 430’000’000’000 USD left to do other stuff. I don’t believe that AI is a better way of spending money than putting a roof over the heads of people who need it. No matter how cool HER would be. The fun thing: you could even do many great things to help US citizens along (help people become independent of food banks?) AND have 100 billion left for some more moderate (still astronomical) investment into AI. Some people might call that higher taxes for tech, but that word’s got a bad, commie, aftertaste. Why not call it the patriotic eagle pledge for power innovation and financial potency and make tech companies solve actual problems?
We have actual problems here. We should try as much as possible to direct the astronomical amounts of money to solving these problems, and not to produce another fun consumer product. One might argue: well - maybe AI fixes all those problems for us, magically. That’s just The Sorcerer’s Apprentice* in real life with real consequences and real crises going unattended.
(*A young apprentice, left alone by his master, uses magic to animate brooms for chores. Losing control, chaos ensues until the sorcerer returns, stops the magic, and punishes him.)
THAT SAID - I really like the episode! TWIG is currently my favourite format on TWiT. Despite what I wrote, I am looking forward to Intelligent Machines! All shows that elicit a response and not just go in through one ear and out through the other are good shows in my mind. It’s sad you’re losing the flutes, though. AI is certainly not better than Händel. But hey… Opinions…
On to the rest of the show!
Very well said. AI might solve problems, but it isn’t even really being aimed at those sorts of problems, it is being aimed at “fun” things.
Likewise, the benefits of AI were always sold as, “it will do the boring parts of your job, leaving you to be creative and do the fun things…” But, just look at the show, as an example, it is doing all the fun and creative things (making music, videos, images) leaving us more time to do the boring things at work…