With that said, the amount of societal destruction caused by it, I do wish it hadn’t been invented.

I don’t disagree but I believe this is inevitable and unavoidable. We could never prevent pandora’s box to be opened.

I believe the main thing is the loss of trust that you are talking to actual human beings and that massive amounts of opinion and upvotes on social media are just manufactured. Economic power translates into supremacy of political opinion and influence.

But this already began before LLMs were good enough, from content farms producing slop articles to the russian web brigades and other state backed operations, to special interests like fossil fuel lobby, Trump’s rise to prominence during Obama’s term with the help of organized operations by Alt-Right and Gamergate that Steve Bannon weaponized, the simplified smartphones that allowed boomers easy access to social media. The political correct mandatory narrative about Ukraine.

Basically we had bots long before AI and the culture war was already lost.

I don’t know when or even if it happened, but discourse now is drastically different than it felt a decade earlier. You’re either with us or against us.

One stupid idea I have is “Only a good AI in a browser can stop a bad AI in the internet”. Not sure about the technical feasibility, but terniary models can pack 27b LLMs into a smartphone. Imagine we could actually filter out a lot of disinformation and brainworms. Or have an LLM parse all comments by a suspected bad faith actor and make an estimative judgement on it. Make the internet usable again lol. Maybe it can be used as a powerful tool for good. But fuckai cuts off any discussion about this. The immediate backlash to an AI model inside Firefox was near absolute.

Is this “Shou Tucker” that wide known?

I tried understanding this comic and wondered why you drew Lindsey Graham so young lol.

Are there any headphones that include an opus player with a micro sd card?

I want a new browser than completely “reskins” the most important websites. There is Reader View on firefox which I wish would be a bit more expanded and flexible. And maybe something like web archive but it only P2P shares the simplified reader view of articles and pages. For that simpler AI models could be very useful.

If there was just one country on earth that would say no to intellectual property laws. You could put a central repository server there and mirror most of the internet and make it accessible again. I’d gladly pay a few bucks a month for that. Maybe combine it with a VPN.

Don’t know anything except the article about this, but in general this sounds like theater. Having a for profit corporation in charge of a public bridge and no sufficiently regulated is simple the fault of the government, and of the ideology behind it.

If you breed dangerous predators and then let them loose, shooting them after they kill someone is a pointless victory.

PS: So this is also a failing of the press and news media for not reporting on this very obvious problem of privatization.

Yeah a complete collapse of Russia is pretty much the only win condition for Ukraine. I don’t think a coup is possible since the Russian military knows how dangerous Ukraine has become. Hardliners on all sides. A total collapse of Russia would be very dangerous too.

It’s also possible the AI bubble will pop and the US and then global economy will collapse, and then EU backing for Ukraine could fail too. That would be the worst case scenario lol. Can you imagine how easy it would be to stoke resentment among Ukrainians against Europe for “betraying” them? And then millions more of refugees fleeing and pushing into a Europe in an economic crisis.

It doesn’t have the best robot for the job, it only needs to be more profitable than a human for that particular job, and be a “slot in replacement” with low risk. The free market system is very inefficient that way lol.

War often accelerates the development and adoption of technology. Russia is learning a lot too in this war and are focusing on developing and producing better killer drones as well. As much as people here want to believe so, Russians are not stupid.

Once we can fully mass produce killer drones automatically, they basically become a weapon of mass destruction. But unlike a nuke, they could depopulate a whole country without much fuss. At least theoretically. With solar panels they could even enter a kind of “lurker” mode to wait out any stragglers.

Robots are getting better bit by bit. Basically the percentage of the population that has a certain “skill ceiling” is slowly growing.

But you can make a soft transition, replace this or that without redesigning everything and take on huge risks. As long as it saves money it works.

So far humans can do FAR more complex work than robots can. The goal has to be to design a robot that you can program by telling and showing it what to do with human language. If you can do that and save money, then you have a robot that can truly scale. Instead of designing thousands of new factories, you have one robot that can be put into every factory on earth. And those robots will benefit from economies of scale.

Long term the value of human labor under capitalism will move towards zero. This is inevitable. Under socialism, AI could be used to reduce working hours or improve economic planning.

You’re just angry. And instead of suggesting something a politician actually could use as a demand or as a policy, you’re just ranting. And for them that is perfect to exploit.

I totally agree that AI is a force multiplier (for profit and seeking power) but what to do about this? What would concrete policies we could demand actually look like?

My issue is that this goes against fuckai doctrine: “AI is completely useless and can’t do anything, can’t replace workers, produces no intelligent output, can’t code, can’t produce images or video or anything really. Only slop!” According to fuckai, it’s completely worthless. So how CAN it be a force multiplier? The enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak. This is an example of the doublethink this requires and it’s my main problem. This disconnect with reality.

Not just is it disgusting just like other reality deniers (e.g. maga, antivax, climate, ukraine) who thought terminate and just verbally attack when they meet someone who disagrees, it makes it easy for this outrage to be used against us. If there is a resistance to AI, the AI bros could not ask for a less effective resistance to face. Look at the comments here, now they want to cancel George Lucas because he sees potential for visual effects lol.

I believe this force multiplier will slowly build up over the next decade. The AI bubble will presumably pop soonish, we’ll have a massive economic crisis (which started long before AI) and eventually we’ll find and deploy “useful” applications of these new AI models.

Of course, as a socialist, should I refuse a machine that does useful work? I don’t believe so. E.g. I see immense potential for these LLM models to be used for planned economies and other things.

So what policies do we actually want? I don’t see any demands except stopping data centers. Which is sensible. BTW even the Anthropic CEO called for a moratorium and regulation on AI.

The first should be mandatory electronic metadata tags for AI generated images and tags. The second should be slow down the speed of data centers and regulating that they need to be actually sustainable ecologically (e.g. solar and wind and recyclable batteries and water).

The larger issue I see is that our global economy, that the vast majority of money today is “imaginary”. It’s not backed by actual real production or services. We keep printing money, and people want to grow that money so we see this insane multi trillion investment boom into overhype. That is why even the anthropic CEO thinks AI is growing too fast. Imagine if we’d invest all that money sensibly. And that has nothing to do with AI really.

In Europe, many countries require mandatory registration of SIM cards, which means you must provide personal identification, such as a passport, to activate a phone number. This regulation is primarily aimed at enhancing security…

We already have this although Europe. You have a phone, government can track you.

Something something tankies bad

So how come epic can sue for stuff like this, but we can’t sue for android to remain open? Is this just a question of having money to fund such a lawsuit?

Objectively you can ask a billion people and see what their opinions are on various star wars media. It’s one of the few things a billion people will know and have an opinion about.

But because George Lucas said something positive about AI use for visual effects, suddenly what mustn’t be, can’t be. You people have no problem denying reality and shouting out alternative facts if it suits your agenda.

There is really a purposeful ignorance to the whole fuckai movement. Like the OP article treats “AI is notorious for stealing from humans” as a settled argument, like if you don’t agree with that statement it’s a moral failing. There is no disagreements in their echo chambers any more, only good vs evil. But as we know, only a Sith deals in absolutes lol.

Or “a technology that’s being used to remove the human element from the process” yeah it - once it actually does look better and is more controllable - can drastically reduce how much human labor is needed.

But that argument has two sides, and thee author is basically making a pro-capitalism argument. Films and movies SHOULD belong to the capitalists, who control who can make movies and expensive entertainment, they get to control the narrative, and obviously anything that won’t make money never sees daylight. Yeah it’s nice that people work on movies, but it incredibly expensive.

If their argument was that we should build a socialist movie industry, with a separate institution with separate elections printing money to produce movies and art and the voters get to vote and influence what is being financed - yeah that would be nice. But who can even imagine some system today any more?

Instead we are already seeing plenty of amateurs making shitty AI movies and slop, but eventually the tools will get better and the best new directors will produce worthwhile art.

And the argument against is of course “no current AI is a dead end here someone said it over there, it won’t get better, only slop!” and then they treat THAT as a settled argument and a moral failing to think we’ll see progress. Do these people now have eyes to see? People struggle to tell if a scene is AI generated or not, but someone it’s not good enough and a filmmaker saying “yeah cool” is worthy of being scolded?

Just the last months we’ve seen breakthroughs in computing hardware and in software with full 27b models compressed to “terniary” fitting on a smartphone. The AI bubble is grotesque and will pop. The advancements in AI models will remain.

All this hatred and rage should be directed against capitalism and the plutocrats, but it’s being misdirected and turn out counterproductive.

The most straightforward AI policy we should push is to mandate AI metadata tags for images, video and text that must remain when editing. So you can immediately see a watermark or icon on an image or video in the browser. But do we hear this anywhere?

This should really be a critique of capitalism. The problem is that the plutocracy is very good at using your anger and rage against you.

I mean yeah totally, it sounds comically evil lol. But I don’t think this will even work out for them.

If it could work out to really cleanroom create new standard library stuff, then the “value of programming labour” has actually gone down very much. At least for these kinds of “solved problems”. That would be the moral there, that we have solved certain problems and now have machine intelligence who can create infinite variations and adaptations to this. Which would be awesome, being able to rewrite much of the IT stack in more safe or more performant languages, or automatically optimize and improve. If that was possible already it would be a cause to celebrate. On to code bigger and better things.

But we’re not even there yet, they’d have plenty of problems, bugs, issues and downsides with their “malus alternative”. So I don’t see a huge issue with this.

Banning no, but regulating yes. You used to need (or still technically need) a broadcast license or something to broadcast news or public a news paper. So historically this would have been the default, that if a newspaper publishes hate speech or derogatory lies about a person, that they can be legally stopped from doing this. All that went mostly out the window for social media, who have taken over news “reporting” and political commentary, replacing it with algorithms that act purely for profit and deliberately create divisions and polarization. The government absolutely has a duty to protect adults from that. Addictive substances have also been outlawed / regulated.

It’s just that when all this started it was small and harmless and most computer nerds were very much against any kind of regulation. We were warned but I was an idiot back then too. Now we have an overwhelming concentration of global political power in the hands of e.g. Zuckerberg and others controlling social media, for profit, for neoliberal political goals, for the suppression and diversion of political expression, or promoting fascist political ideology. It’s really only since ~2010 with Trumps rise and backlash to Obama that things quickly became this bad.

We are supposed to be a democracy, but today unchecked foreign political power not just influences the opinions of people, but sets the agenda.

I would absolutely be in favor of banning all unregulated (e.g. US) social media and creating an EU wide public utility social media network. Just make reddit, facebook, insta and all that stuff inaccessible in the EU unless they comply with very stringent regulation and moderation and a “non-profit” approach. China and Russia have their own media not just to suppress dissent, but to protect themselves from US influence. But I do think we now know enough to create a better alternative than either.