grazie! jc
(messaggio spedito in movimento - scusate brevità ed eventuali refusi) > Il giorno 6 mag 2023, alle ore 10:35, Federico Guerrini via nexa > <nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto: > > > Ciao, mi sono imbattuto in questo articolo del New Yorker che, secondo me, > meriterebbe di essere copi-incollato tutto; > non necessariamente perché sia d'accordo con tutto quello che dice, ma perché > è sicuramente thought provoking (il titolo nella subject line è mio, quello > del pezzo è leggermente diverso). > > Qualche estratto: > > "Just to be clear, when I refer to capitalism, I’m not talking about the > exchange of goods or services for prices determined by a market, which is a > property of many economic systems. When I refer to capitalism, I’m talking > about a specific relationship between capital and labor, in which private > individuals who have money are able to profit off the effort of others. So, > in the context of this discussion, whenever I criticize capitalism, I’m not > criticizing the idea of selling things; I’m criticizing the idea that people > who have lots of money get to wield power over people who actually work. And, > more specifically, I’m criticizing the ever-growing concentration of wealth > among an ever-smaller number of people, which may or may not be an intrinsic > property of capitalism but which absolutely characterizes capitalism as it is > practiced today. As it is currently deployed, A.I. often amounts to an effort > to analyze a task that human beings perform and figure out a way to replace > the human being. Coincidentally, this is exactly the type of problem that > management wants solved. As a result, A.I. assists capital at the expense of > labor. There isn’t really anything like a labor-consulting firm that furthers > the interests of workers. Is it possible for A.I. to take on that role? Can > A.I. do anything to assist workers instead of management? > > Some might say that it’s not the job of A.I. to oppose capitalism. That may > be true, but it’s not the job of A.I. to strengthen capitalism, either. Yet > that is what it currently does. If we cannot come up with ways for A.I. to > reduce the concentration of wealth, then I’d say it’s hard to argue that A.I. > is a neutral technology, let alone a beneficial one." > > -------- > > "By building A.I. to do jobs previously performed by people, A.I. researchers > are increasing the concentration of wealth to such extreme levels that the > only way to avoid societal collapse is for the government to step in. > Intentionally or not, this is very similar to voting for Trump with the goal > of bringing about a better world. > And the rise of Trump illustrates the risks of pursuing accelerationism as a > strategy: things can get very bad, and stay very bad for a long time, before > they get better. In fact, you have no idea of how long it will take for > things to get better; all you can be sure of is that there will be > significant pain and suffering in the short and medium term. > I’m not very convinced by claims that A.I. poses a danger to humanity because > it might develop goals of its own and prevent us from turning it off. > However, I do think that A.I. is dangerous inasmuch as it increases the power > of capitalism. The doomsday scenario is not a manufacturing A.I. transforming > the entire planet into paper clips, as one famous thought experiment has > imagined. It’s A.I.-supercharged corporations destroying the environment and > the working class in their pursuit of shareholder value. Capitalism is the > machine that will do whatever it takes to prevent us from turning it off, and > the most successful weapon in its arsenal has been its campaign to prevent us > from considering any alternatives. > People who criticize new technologies are sometimes called Luddites, but it’s > helpful to clarify what the Luddites actually wanted. The main thing they > were protesting was the fact that their wages were falling at the same time > that factory owners’ profits were increasing, along with food prices. They > were also protesting unsafe working conditions, the use of child labor, and > the sale of shoddy goods that discredited the entire textile industry. The > Luddites did not indiscriminately destroy machines; if a machine’s owner paid > his workers well, they left it alone. The Luddites were not anti-technology; > what they wanted was economic justice. They destroyed machinery as a way to > get factory owners’ attention. The fact that the word “Luddite” is now used > as an insult, a way of calling someone irrational and ignorant, is a result > of a smear campaign by the forces of capital. > Whenever anyone accuses anyone else of being a Luddite, it’s worth asking, is > the person being accused actually against technology? Or are they in favor of > economic justice? And is the person making the accusation actually in favor > of improving people’s lives? Or are they just trying to increase the private > accumulation of capital?" > > https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-artificial-intelligence/will-ai-become-the-new-mckinsey > > Ciao, > > Federico > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa@server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
