[nexa] Is AI just 'Capital's Willing Executioner'?
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
Re: [nexa] Leaked Internal Google Document Claims Open Source AI Will Outcompete Google and OpenAI
> https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-neither "Browsing through the models that people are creating in the image generation space, there is a vast outpouring of creativity, from anime generators to HDR landscapes. These models are used and created by people who are deeply immersed in their particular subgenre, lending a depth of knowledge and empathy we cannot hope to match. Paradoxically, the one clear winner in all of this is Meta. Because the leaked model was theirs, they have effectively garnered an entire planet's worth of free labor. Since most open source innovation is happening on top of their architecture, there is nothing stopping them from directly incorporating it into their products. The value of owning the ecosystem cannot be overstated. Google itself has successfully used this paradigm in its open source offerings, like Chrome and Android. By owning the platform where innovation happens, Google cements itself as a thought leader and direction-setter, earning the ability to shape the narrative on ideas that are larger than itself." Ma tu guarda, non l'avrei minimamente pensato. Questi dell'open source sono "creativi", "empatici" e "competenti" e noi non ne stiamo ANCORA approfittando? A. ___ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
Re: [nexa] Is AI just 'Capital's Willing Executioner'?
grazie! jc (messaggio spedito in movimento - scusate brevità ed eventuali refusi) > Il giorno 6 mag 2023, alle ore 10:35, Federico Guerrini via nexa > 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
[nexa] Consapevolezza emergente
ANTHONY TRUPIA VS. SAM ALTMAN ET AL - Cause of Action: FRAUD "Defendants, allegedly running a “Non-Profit” entity for “the benefit of all humanity,” have perpetrated a massive fraud on donors, beneficiaries, and the public at large, and have exposed “all of humanity,” their supposed beneficiaries, to massive unprecedented risks for personal gain. Defendants have used deceptive advertising, unfair competition, and fraud to build an extraordinarily valuable resource to use for personal gain at the exclusion of purported beneficiaries. It also appears likely defendants have already used this technology illegally in violation of federal law. There are a number of pressing and concerning issues with the operation of OpenAI, Inc." Queste le prime righe del Complaint (319 pagine). Qui tutti i documenti: https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?CaseNum=CGC23606176&SessionID=A4D9B68C28D1438E7959B6A946100E9FF1769C14 ___ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
Re: [nexa] Is AI just 'Capital's Willing Executioner'?
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 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
