Great reflection. I’m an English teacher, and while most in my profession seem unwilling to admit it, AI can spell little good for them future of our discipline. Rather, just a year after its launch, it seems students regularly turn to chat GPT for their writing assignments.
Recently I’ve been encouraged by the work of researchers demonstrating the adverse effects of smartphones. It’s something I’ve been preaching for ten years, and for the first time I feel hopeful that my children won’t be forced to don the shackles of smartphones. However, just as it seems we get a little light at the tunnel’s end on smartphones, AI swoops in and fills the vacuum, taking hold immensely more quickly than the smartphone did.
I’ve written about a kind of pulling back (and even out) of the technorat race that I’ve coined the “Amish Moment” and the value of Forbidden Knowledge. I’ve been on a brief hiatus since moving recently, but I got to try back to it soon. I’d love to have your feedback.
Thank you, D. Personally, I think it's quite a horrible thing that students turn to ChatGPT. Unfortunately, the path of least resistance is tempting for many.
If you send me a link to an article you wrote about the topic, I will gladly comment! It's interesting, I've been studying the Amish a bit (read a book about them), and they have some very good ideas about moderation when it comes to technology.
Excellent article! Indeed, AI is just a symptom of the tendency our society has of looking at everything that exists as a resource to be explored until it runs dry.
In terms of what we value, most of AI is a positive addition to the 'Human' mind. But AI is subverted to another 'Human' characteristic. This is best expressed in a line from a well known movie spoken to a 'human' who doesn't like what seems the basic motive of mankind. " It is in your nature to destroy yourselves." Remember that line? Not really SciFi from the AI targeting of people in Gaza. The 'human' component is not even a minor consideration. Welcome to the 'AI presidency' where the obvious is not even on the radar screen of action. A 'party man with not a whit of humanity to rise to respond to the obvious..
If AI is a positive addition to the human mind in terms of what "we" value, then I certainly am not a member of that "we". But I do agree that AI will always be subverted into that nature spoken by the Terminator.
I appreciate the comment very much, Sean Pan. Moreover, I do agree with the proposal that more power AI models should be paused as in PauseAI. However, I have a fundamental disagreement with the proposal of PauseAI. Of course, I appreciate where PauseAI is coming from, and I do think pausing AI might be better than nothing. However, for the sake of completeness, here is why I could not align myself with PauseAI, given some of this text on their website:
"Implement a pause on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4, until we know how to build them safely and keep them under democratic control."
I don't think this is the right way to approach things. I don't think we should *just* pause AI until we can get it under democratic control. I believe it is fundamentally contradictory to human and non-human life and it should be destroyed.
"Particularly many of them [PauseAI] have been excited about the potential of AI to help humanity."
I don't think AI can ever help humanity. It is too powerful and can never be under control enough for us to use it.
"We applaud OpenAI and Google for their calls for international regulation of AI."
I certainly don't. I don't applaud them because I think their calls for AI regulation are just a front to superficially please those who worry. Their definition of AI "safety" is laughable and ineffective. I liken their version of AI safety to "let's make biological weapons safe but still develop them", only worse.
Of course, some have considered my more definitive and extreme views to be impractical. I don't. I believe if I want to gather a following, I need to clearly state what I believe is morally true. Moreover, I believe that in the long term, I can more easily gather people together to effect real action with an unequivocal view on the true danger of AI.
The most important thing is that I will never support any plan whose eventual outcome is the use of AI, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how "democratic" some people believe it to be, no matter how much people may *think* they have it under control.
My only aim is to support its destruction, whether by economic or any other means, and the only way I believe I can do that is through an uncompromising approach against it.
Again, I appreciate the approach of you and your colleagues, but I must take a different approach.
Great reflection. I’m an English teacher, and while most in my profession seem unwilling to admit it, AI can spell little good for them future of our discipline. Rather, just a year after its launch, it seems students regularly turn to chat GPT for their writing assignments.
Recently I’ve been encouraged by the work of researchers demonstrating the adverse effects of smartphones. It’s something I’ve been preaching for ten years, and for the first time I feel hopeful that my children won’t be forced to don the shackles of smartphones. However, just as it seems we get a little light at the tunnel’s end on smartphones, AI swoops in and fills the vacuum, taking hold immensely more quickly than the smartphone did.
I’ve written about a kind of pulling back (and even out) of the technorat race that I’ve coined the “Amish Moment” and the value of Forbidden Knowledge. I’ve been on a brief hiatus since moving recently, but I got to try back to it soon. I’d love to have your feedback.
Thank you, D. Personally, I think it's quite a horrible thing that students turn to ChatGPT. Unfortunately, the path of least resistance is tempting for many.
If you send me a link to an article you wrote about the topic, I will gladly comment! It's interesting, I've been studying the Amish a bit (read a book about them), and they have some very good ideas about moderation when it comes to technology.
Excellent article! Indeed, AI is just a symptom of the tendency our society has of looking at everything that exists as a resource to be explored until it runs dry.
Thank you very much for your comment. Unfortunately, if not enough people realize this then just attacking AI will probably strengthen it.
In terms of what we value, most of AI is a positive addition to the 'Human' mind. But AI is subverted to another 'Human' characteristic. This is best expressed in a line from a well known movie spoken to a 'human' who doesn't like what seems the basic motive of mankind. " It is in your nature to destroy yourselves." Remember that line? Not really SciFi from the AI targeting of people in Gaza. The 'human' component is not even a minor consideration. Welcome to the 'AI presidency' where the obvious is not even on the radar screen of action. A 'party man with not a whit of humanity to rise to respond to the obvious..
If AI is a positive addition to the human mind in terms of what "we" value, then I certainly am not a member of that "we". But I do agree that AI will always be subverted into that nature spoken by the Terminator.
Join us in PauseAI. I agree with your analysis, overall, too. Its as much if not more, a human problem.
I appreciate the comment very much, Sean Pan. Moreover, I do agree with the proposal that more power AI models should be paused as in PauseAI. However, I have a fundamental disagreement with the proposal of PauseAI. Of course, I appreciate where PauseAI is coming from, and I do think pausing AI might be better than nothing. However, for the sake of completeness, here is why I could not align myself with PauseAI, given some of this text on their website:
"Implement a pause on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4, until we know how to build them safely and keep them under democratic control."
I don't think this is the right way to approach things. I don't think we should *just* pause AI until we can get it under democratic control. I believe it is fundamentally contradictory to human and non-human life and it should be destroyed.
"Particularly many of them [PauseAI] have been excited about the potential of AI to help humanity."
I don't think AI can ever help humanity. It is too powerful and can never be under control enough for us to use it.
"We applaud OpenAI and Google for their calls for international regulation of AI."
I certainly don't. I don't applaud them because I think their calls for AI regulation are just a front to superficially please those who worry. Their definition of AI "safety" is laughable and ineffective. I liken their version of AI safety to "let's make biological weapons safe but still develop them", only worse.
Of course, some have considered my more definitive and extreme views to be impractical. I don't. I believe if I want to gather a following, I need to clearly state what I believe is morally true. Moreover, I believe that in the long term, I can more easily gather people together to effect real action with an unequivocal view on the true danger of AI.
The most important thing is that I will never support any plan whose eventual outcome is the use of AI, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how "democratic" some people believe it to be, no matter how much people may *think* they have it under control.
My only aim is to support its destruction, whether by economic or any other means, and the only way I believe I can do that is through an uncompromising approach against it.
Again, I appreciate the approach of you and your colleagues, but I must take a different approach.
I think we should work together despite differences as we generally align more than not. What is a good email for you?
It's jpolak (at) jpolak (dot) org. Thanks! Would love to discuss!
Our Discord is here:
https://discord.com/invite/pauseai-1100491867675709580