The only thing utopian ideologies are good for is finding 'justifications' for murder. The "AI utopia" will be no different. De-radicalize yourself while you still can.
It seems like an observation to me. Let’s take the Marxist utopian ideology. It led to 40 - 60 million dead in the Soviet Union (Gulag Archipelago is an eye opening read). And 40 - 80 million dead in Mao Zedong’s China. It’s hard to even wrap my mind around that amount of people dead.
Then a smaller example in Matthia’s cult in the “Kingdom Of Matthias” book. Started around the same time as Mormonism. Which led to a murder. Or the Peoples Temple cult with 909 dead in mass suicide. The communal aspects of these give away their “utopian ideology”
I’d like to hear where you’re coming from. I have a Christian worldview, so when I look at these movements it seems they have an obvious presupposition on human nature (that with the right systems in place people will act perfectly — so it is the systems that are flawed not the people themselves). Utopia is inherently religious, and I’d say it is the human desire to have heaven on earth — but gone about in the wrong ways. Because humans are flawed, no economic system or communal living in itself can bring about the utopian ideal.
We are quite OT here, but I would say christianity in general is a utopian ideology as well. All humans could be living in peace and harmony, if they would just believe in Jesus Christ. (I know there are differences, but this is the essence of what I was taught)
And well, how many were killed in the name of the Lord? Quite a lot I think. Now you can argue, those were not really christians. Maybe. But Marxists argue the same of the people responsible for the gulags. (I am not a marxist btw)
"Because humans are flawed, no economic system or communal living in itself can bring about the utopian ideal."
And it simply depends on the specific Utopian ideal. Because a good utopian concept/dream takes humans as they are - and still find ways to improve living conditions for everyone. Not every Utopia claims to be a eternal heaven for everyone, there are more realistic concepts out there.
Huh, I've read Marx and I dont see the utopianism you're referencing.
What I do see is "classism is the biggest humanitarian crisis of our age," and "solving the class problem will improve people's lives," but no where do I see that non-class problem will cease to exist. People will still fight, get upset, struggle, just not on class terms.
Maybe you read a different set of Marx's writing. Share your reading list if possible.
This article gives a clear view on Marx’s vs. Engel’s view of Utopianism vs. other utopian socialists [1]. That Marx was not opposed to utopianism per se, but rather when the ideas of the utopia did not come from the proletariat. Yet you’re right in that he was opposed to the view of the other utopian socialist, and there is tension in the views of the different socialist thinkers in that time. (I do disagree on the idea that refusing to propose an ideal negates one from in practice having a utopic vision)
That said my comment was looking mainly at the result of Marxist ideology in practice. In practice millions of lives were lost in an attempt to create an idealized world. Here is a good paper on Stalin’s utopian ideal [2].
I know we are a bit off topic. It seems it would be more like if several prominent followers of Jesus committed mass genocide in their respective countries within a century of his teachings. Stalin is considered Marxist-Leninist.
Oh ok. That makes sense. That's because if someone has an idea that causes a lot of immediate harm then the idea is wrong, but if there is a gap then it is not?
Yeah, AI will totally fail if people don't ship untested crap at breakneck speed.
Shipping untested crap is the only known way to develop technology. Your AI assistant hallucinates? Amazing. We gotta bring more chaos to the world, the world is not chaotic enough!!
All AI and all humanity hallucinates, and AI that doesn't hallucinate will functionally obsolete human intelligence. Be careful what you wish for, as humans are biologically incapable of not "hallucinating".
GPT is better than an average human at coding. GPT is worse than an average human at recognizing bounds of its knowledge (i.e. it doesn't know that it doesn't know).
Is it fundamental? I don't think so. GPT was trained largely on random internet crap. One of popular datasets is literally called The Pile.
If you just use The Pile as a training dataset, AI will learn very little reasoning, but it will learn to make some plausible shit up, because that's the training objective. Literally. It's trained to guess the Pile.
Is that the only way to train an AI? No. E.g. check "Textbooks Are All You Need" paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11644 A small model trained on high-quality dataset can beat much bigger models at code generation.
So why are you so eager to use a low-quality AI trained on crap? Can't you wait few years until they develop better products?
Being better than the average human at coding is as easy as being better than the average human at surgery. Until it's better than actual skilled programmers, the people who are programming for a living are still responsible for learning to do the job well.
Without supposing we're on this trajectory, humans no longer needing to focus on being productive is how we might be able to focus on being better humans.
humanity is capable of taking feedback, citing its sources, and not outright lying
these models are built to sound like they know what they are talking about, whether they do or not. this violates our basic social coordination mechanisms in ways that usually only delusional or psychopathic people do, making the models worse than useless
Yes, but that's an active process. You can't just be "pro change".
Occasionally, in high risk situations, "good change good, bad change bad" looks like "change bad" at a glance, because change will be bad by default without great effort invested in picking the good change.
You haven't been around when Web2.0 and the whole modern internet arrived, were you? You know, all the sites that you consider stable and robust now (Google, YT and everything else) shipping with a Beta sign plastered onto them.
Web sites were quite stable back then. Not really much less stable than they are now. E.g. Twitter now has more issues than web sites I used often back in 2000s.
They had "beta" sign because they had much higher quality standards. They warned users that things are not perfect. Now people just accept that software is half-broken, and there's no need for beta signs - there's no expectation of quality.
Also, being down is one thing, sending random crap to a user is completely another. E.g. consider web mail, if it is down for one hour it's kinda OK. If it shows you random crap instead of your email, or sends your email to a wrong person. That would be very much not OK, and that's the sort of issues that OpenAI is having now. Nobody complains that it's down sometimes, but it returns erroneous answers.
But it’s not supposed to ship totally “correct” answers. It is supposed to predict which text is most likely to follow the prompt. It does that correctly, whether the answer is factually correct or not.
If that is how it was marketing itself, with the big disclaimers like tarot readers have that this is just for entertainment and not meant to be taken as factual advice, it might be doing a lot less harm but Sam Altman would make fewer billions so that is apparently not an option.
Chat-based AI like ChatGPT are marketed as an assistant. People expect that it can answer their questions, and often it can answer even complex questions correctly. Then it can fail miserably on a basic question.
GitHub Copilot is an auto-completer, and that's, perhaps, a proper use of this technology. At this stage, make auto-completion better. That's nice.
Why is it necessary to release "GPTs"? This is a rush to deliver half-baked tech, just for the sake of hype. Sam was fired for a good reason.
Example: Somebody markets GPT called "Grimoire" a "100x Engineer". I gave him a task to make a simple game, and it just gave a skeleton of code instead of an actual implementation: https://twitter.com/killerstorm/status/1723848549647925441
Nobody needs this shit. In fact, AI progress can happen faster if people do real research instead of prompting GPTs.
Needlessly pedantic. Hold consumers accountable too. "Durr I thought autopilot meant it drove itself. Manual, nah brah I didn't read that shit, reading's for nerds. The huge warning and license terms, didn't read that either dweeb. Car trying to stop me for safety if I take my hands off the wheel? Brah I just watched a Tiktok that showed what to do and I turned that shit offff".
You could also say that shipping social media algorithms with unknown effects on society as a whole are why we're in such a state right now. Maybe we should be more careful next time around.
