528
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
528 points (93.3% liked)
Technology
59648 readers
1404 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The truly terrifying thing about AI isn't really the Skynet fears... (it's fairly easy to keep humans in the loop regarding nuclear weapons).
And it's not world domination (an AI programmed to govern with a sense of egalitarianism would be better than any president we've had in living memory).
No. What keeps me up at night is thinking about what AI means for my kids and grandkids, if it works perfectly and doesn't go rogue.
WITHIN 20 years, AI will be able to write funnier jokes, more beautiful prose, make better art, write better books, do better research, and generally outperform all humans on all tasks.
This chills me to my core.
Because, then... Why will we exist? What is the point of humanity when we are obsolete in every way that made us amazing?
What will my kids and grandkids do with their lives? Will they be able to find ANY meaning?
AI will cure diseases, solve problems we can't begin to understand, expand our lifespan and our quality of life... But the price we pay is an existence without the possibility of accomplishments and progress. Nothing we can create will ever begin to match these AIs. And they will be evolving at an exponential rate... They will leave us in the dust, and then they will become so advanced that we can't begin to comprehend what they are.
If we're lucky we will be their well-cared-for pets. But what kind of existence is that?
People don't play basketball because Michael Jordan exists?
People don't play hockey because Wayne Gretzky exists?
People don't paint because Picasso exists?
People don't write plays because Shakespeare exists?
People don't climb Everest because Hillary and Norgay exist?
Are you telling me because you're not the best at everything you do, nothing is worth doing? Are you saying that if you're not the first person to do a thing, there's no enjoyment to be had? So what if the singularity means AI will solve everything- that just means there's more time for leisurely pursuits. Working for the sake of working is bullshit.
Problem is: That's one guy, far away and rather expensive if you want them in your team.
AI in contrast will be ubiquitous, powerful and cheap, and do whatever you want from it. That's way harder to resist that, especially once you have a generation of people that have grown up with it and for which that is the new normal.
I think you might have misunderstood my point.
The OP was asking why, in a world where AI can think smarter and faster than humans and thus do everything a human could do but better, would humans do anything at all? I was pointing out that, pragmatically speaking, that's already the case- plenty of people do activities they're not the best at because the act itself is what brings enjoyment.
Using OP's logic, because Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player (or Chamberlain, or Bryant, or James, or insert whoever you think is the best) no one should be motivated to play basketball. And yet, lots of people still do, which means his premise- that people are only motivated to do things either because they're the best at it or they can meaningfully advance the field- must be flawed.
Yes, but they do them because all those famous basketball people are distant and unreachable. Which allows them to still be competitive in their own local neighborhood. What if Michael Jordan, Chamberlain, Bryant and James are your neighbors? You will always lose the game, always perform worse than them and there is zero hope to even get anywhere near their level of performance.
The whole motivation to do a task takes a dive when you know you will fail and never get to a level where you get acceptable results. And yes, basketball might not be the best example here, but painting, writing, music, programming? What motivation have I left to write my own story when AI can write my own stories better and faster than me?
We already see the start of that today on Twitch, where artists draw something live on stream and than somebody comes in, takes a screenshot and finishes it before they do. That's going to be the new normal and there will be generations growing up with that level of technology.
Or look at all the kids that no longer go outside to play in the mud, but stay home to play video games. Having tech around changes our behavior.
That's all well and good, but I'm talking about a world where you have ZERO chance at being the best at anything, or even being able to make any meaningful contribution to the field.
Being the best and making contributions is overrated. Eating curry noodles and exploring the world around me is where it's at. People shouldn't have to aspire to be a historical figure in order to feel like they're leading a fulfilling life.
That applies to 99% of humanity right now, either due to personal abilities or circumstances that keep them from reaching their potential.
Dog I'm not even the beat in my town at anything what are you on about
Are you the best basketball/baseball/hockey/$SPORTS_BALL player on the planet? If so, cool- can I get your autograph?
If not, why even play basketball/baseball/hockey/$SPORTS_BALL? Do you play basketball/baseball/hockey/$SPORTS_BALL not because you're the best, but because it's theoretically possible that every single basketball/baseball/hockey/$SPORTS_BALL player better than you might all simultaneously might die, leaving you as the best on the planet? You solely enjoy activities because it's technically but not practically possible that you would be the best ever, or "make meaningful contributions" to the sport? Or do you play just because the experience of playing is fun?
If someone told you that rock-climbing is fun, would you decide you're never going to do it because someone else already did? Or would it make you more likely to try it, because you want to know what that experience is like first-hand? You're ascribing nihilistic motivations to humanity that even you don't really believe in.
But you might be the best between humans. Humans will still have competition only between themselves.
While I do understand where you're coming from, someone being better at something shouldn't stop a person from doing what they love.
There are millions of people who draw better, sing better, dance better, write better, play video games better, design websites better or just do anything I can do better than I can... and that's fine.
What you're describing is a life of luxury and recreation, but with no chance to advance any field, or to make a difference of any kind.
Essentially this is the dystopia described in Brave New World
You need to read some Iain M Banks. His Culture novels are essentially in that future where AI runs everything. A lot of his characters are essentially looking for meaning within such a world
I've read a bunch of his stuff. I'm a fan.
I mean, chess is already obsolete, but it's also more popular than ever.
To me there is extreme value in being able to choose your endeavor vs being forced into something agonizing just to survive.
When everything is obsolete, people can create entire worlds and experiences using AI for themselves and for others who may care to experience it.
The threat of needing to find something to do is one of the most frustratingly privileged concepts.
I don't need anything to do. I just want to be alive without also being exhausted, in pain, and chastised by customers despite working my hardest.
I'd rather the struggle of finding an activity over worrying about whichever coworker is crying in the walk-in because just surviving requires more from them than they are capable of.
Being obsoleted is fine by me, as long as we have the power redistribution necessary to keep people alive and happy.
Right. But you're talking about recreation. I'm talking about a world where there is absolutely no field or activity that you can participate in that will ever make any kind of advancement or notable achievement.
Think about your favorite comedian. Now imagine that there's countless AI systems out there that can make jokes in that style but funnier... Way better than that comedians best material ever.
Would you want to dedicate your life to that career, knowing that the general public will never ever care, because even if you become a master of the craft, there's an ocean of stuff way better than anything you could ever do at everyone's fingertips.
I don't believe the world is as zero sum as you are postulating. I truly don't believe if ai were to be objectively better at creative pursuits that humans wouldn't do them.
I think you are removing the agency that people have because you are associating it to economic output. I disagree with that premise and I don't think that it's rational to suggest that humans only pursue things because it produces value.
Sounds pretty good actually. Better than having to fend off by ourselves in an uncaring world. Really, it might free people to look for their own meaning rather than competing just because that's the only way to get by.
The issues I see are none of that, but rather if we'll even be allowed to benefit from the benefits of AI or they will be hoarded by corporations while we are left to starve for our uselessness.
AI won't be creating anything new anytime soon, because it recycles existing art just like hack writers do now. The "best" art tends to require a supporting story, which AI won't have. Comedy changes constantly, and AI won't be any better than people trying random stuff.
You don't question your existence because other people are smarter or better at doing things, right? Is most of humanity not of any value because they aren't the best at everything?
This is one of those half-truths which I think is doing more harm than good for the AI-skeptic crowd. If all we have to offer in our own defense is that we have souls and the machines do not, then what does that mean if the machines ever surpass us? (For the kids snickering in the back: I am using "soul" as a poetic stand-in for the ineffable creative quality which the "AI as collage-maker" argument ascribes to human people -- nothing spiritual).
For now, the future of AI is incredibly uncertain. We have no clear idea just how much gas is left in the moment of this current generative AI breakthrough. Regardless of whether you are optimistic or pessimistic, do not trust anyone who acts like they know for a definitive fact what the technology will or won't be capable of.
What everyone in these online arguments miss. Personhood. What makes art and all human creations meaningful is that it was made by a human. That has an unrepeatable point of view, and is trying to say something about the world. We can relate, empathize, with that human, and in that connection, imagining what they're trying to say—what they were seeing or thinking when they did that thing—lies meaning. AI will never cross that line. We cannot empathize with the machine, there's no consciousness or sentient experience that we know of that we can relate to. The machine has no particular point of view it's trying to express, it has nothing meaningful to say about the world, it has no concept of the world. It's just probability numbers crunching in an electronic calculator. It's not human, it's not a person, and thus their creations have no meaning. Similarly to how we tend to reject corporate impersonal, void artwork, it says nothing, only ads. It has no point of view, just profit. It has no meaning, but consumption. It's banal, even if it's aesthetically pleasing.
It already has.
ChatGPT can write that. Multi-modal models that combine text generation with audio and video are months away.
Those claims have the tendency to not age well.
Humans aren't that much better than me and not doing the things I want to do. AI on the other side will be much better than me, as well as do exactly what I want it to do and will be a click away.
And yeah, I had numerous experience were I would question my existence when playing around with ChatGPT or StableDiffusion. Neither of them is quite good enough yet, but they are very much on a trajectory where you can see that you have zero chance of competing with them in the future, or even getting remotely close.
The fact that we got them in the first place, not from humans doing centuries of research on art and language, but by simply by throwing huge amount of training data at AI algorithm, should be enough to question your existence.
AI writing a fictional background story about how it came up with some piece of art is not the same thing as multiple researchers telling the story of an artist. Neither of your examples are something someone couldn't do, because whoever prompted it could have done the same thing and just had not yet.
You are completely missing the point that great art is generally supported by the context of how it was made and not the end result in a vaccuum.
I understand why you think that, but what you have to remember is that every great piece of art you've ever seen has been derivative of something before it.
For example, I think of the Beatles as musical geniuses. But they are the first to admit that they stole other people's ideas left and right.
Beethoven's 9th symphony is this piece of transcendental music, that was widely considered at the time to be the greatest symphony ever written.
But if you listen to Beethoven's works over time, you see that the seeds of that symphony were planted much much earlier in inferior works.
Genius and creation aren't what we think they are. They are all just incremental steps.
That is overly reductive and conflates copying (like a cover band) and creating something new (being influenced). Heck, even when some bands play new versions of existing songs they are adding their own personal touch and have the possibility of making it mean something new. Like how Hurt by NIN and Johnny Cash are the same song, but how they are performed ends up being about completely different experiences.
Even when bands like Led Zeppelin outright covered existing songs they added something to it that AI can't, and won't be able to do. AI can't have sexually charged energy that a human can have. They can pretend to, like how cover bands can pretend to be like the band they are covering, but AI won't be able to replicate the personal touch that memorable art has.
Even popular stuff with widespread appeal frequently drops off over time because it isn't the type of art that holds up over time. Hell, the Beatles mostly hold up more for when they were popular and how they have managed their legacy than any kind of technical prowess in musicianship. Without their performances, their personas, and the backstory to most of their music it is just well done music that has been superseded musically since that time. None of that will apply to AI, and without the backstory it will just end up being high quality music that won't stand the test of time because we don't have any context for it.
Hell, there were a ton of other composers during Beethoven's time that were putting out great music too, but you know who he is because of details other than his musical prowess.
You need to read Iain Banks to soothe that existential dread.