top 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 158 points 10 months ago (5 children)

"The point of AI is to permit the wealthy to access the benefits of the talented, while preventing the talented from accessing the benefits of wealth." [Paraphrased, I didn't remember who originally said it.]

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    If that wasn't the case even before Ai, ai just made it more blatant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    AI accelerated it, is all. The wealthy will kill as many people as they can should they ever develop the means to live forever, which is their end goal: immortality. Their healthcare (having money to go wherever and pay whatever) is preventative while everyone else's is reactionary, and only if some middleman is onboard with the doctor's medical prognosis. Only those able to serve them with their labor are desirable. Everyone not useful to them should go off and die. This is why they fight healthcare for all so hard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Aren't these the same people that keep saying we need to have more babies, though?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I thought they were going to use AI to share their wealth /s

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 44 points 10 months ago

    More like wealthy will use anything possible to seize control of everything.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    Cottom cuts to the heart of an issue that both AI doomers and AI boosters seem to take for granted: that an AI-dominated future isn’t inevitable.

    Given the development plateau tech companies seem to be running into these days, a future built on large language models (LLMs) is far from a lock. (Consider, for example, the fact that after a very recent December update, ChatGPT couldn’t even generate an accurate alphabet poster for preschoolers.)
    ...
    Cottom points to the historical record — for example, the fact that chattel slavery was at one time seen as a preordained fact of life, a myth spread by the wealthiest members of that bygone age.

    I like this comparison

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    ChatGPT couldn’t even generate an accurate alphabet poster for preschoolers.)

    And it's already trained on the whole of human knowledge. That's what gets me about LLM's. If it's already trained on the entirety of human knowledge, and still can't accurately complete these basic tasks, how do these companies intend to fulfill their extravagant promises?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Hahaha. The wealthy are using THEIR WEALTH to seize control of everything. Always have, always will.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 10 months ago

    Gen AI and the people behind it are profoundly anti-human. They want everyone dead, diminished, obsolete, and defeated. Refuse AI features anywhere and everywhere they are placed.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago
    [–] 47 points 10 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 45 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    She's not just saying that the wealthy are trying to seize control — she also discusses how they're leveraging the rhetoric of inevitable AI in order to build the foundations for future control. Significantly, she identifies this attempt as being driven by anxiety that the wealthy feel about their future control, and discusses strategies for resisting that.

    What she's saying is far from obvious; I've seen so many anti-AI, anti-capitalist folk unwittingly perpetuating the rhetorical agenda of the wealthy by accepting the notion that a society ran by super advanced AI is inevitable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah I call bullshit on that.

    Automation is inevitable, doesn’t mean decision making will be.

    Having fully automated factory that churns out 100 cars a day is not dystopian if you can have people able to configure that number.

    The dystopian part is having only a few with “admin access”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago
    [–] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    From 1996-2007 Windows users already told the world that 'AI Assistants' can just fuck off. It was called Clippy, and everyone hated it! We will crush you just like we crushed Clippy.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments