Personalmente concordo con gran parte di questa analisi, ma colgo un difetto di fondo.
Continua a considerare il problema in termini esclusivamente economici, noveventeschi. Si tratta di una cornice interpretativa gravemente insufficiente ad affrontare il cambio di paradigma in corso. (non a caso, non è quella usata internamente dalle BigTech) Non si tratta più solo di equità nella distribuzione dei profitti (tant'è che molti miliardari dell'ITC si dicono favorevoli ad ull'Universal Basic Income). Si tratta di Potere Cibernetico. Si tratta di poter imporre la propria volontà a individui, gruppi e persino nazioni intere. Vi propongo un esperimento mentale: vi offro letteralmente qualsiasi cifra possiate desiderare in cambio di poter decidere tutto ciò che da lì in poi farete o direte. Accettate? È quasi quello che stanno facendo le BigTech ma con una differenza: i servizi ad alto valore (economico) aggiunto che forniscono sottocosto (spesso gratis) in cambio di poter decidere (probabilisticamente) cosa facciamo, sono al contempo le catene con cui ci vincolano. Mai nella storia umana gli schiavi erano stati contenti di indossare le catene. Ma le catene sono sempre state gratis, per gli schiavi. Giacomo Il 6 Maggio 2023 08:28:13 UTC, 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
