Recently unredacted legal documents and depositions in the New York Times‘ lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI revealed something extraordinary: executives knew full well of the destructive powers of AI when they rushed to launch products featuring the tech in the wake of the explosive success of OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
Internal Microsoft documents quoted by the newspaper’s lawyers warned of an ugly reality now playing out across the entire economy: “doom loops,” in which AI monetizes the work of human creatives while undermining the economic systems that funded their work in the first place.
Dude you are stuck in your own head. "Move fast and break things" refers to how the discovery process in startups operates, not to Meta breaking the law. No need to make bad-faith arguments just to prove your point.
I mean ai and tech leaders have talked a lot about supporting ubi, basic wealth funds and other measures to dampen the blow and support people. I’m sure people think they’re lying, but it’s hard to say from their public statements.
It's no different from Trump promising DOGE checks. Of course they're gonna pay lip service to such ideas during the transition phase of AI. Notice no laws like that are anywhere close to being passed though, and good luck trying to get any leverage when everybody is out of a job.
And yet they can spend millions on forcing more data center through but none on lobbying ubi???
Yea I too would say anything when I earn 200k everytime I blink.
Before you yap, I work in the tech industry and rub shoulders with insiders, they look at your existence as a problem and laugh about how a world war would solve all their problems with “over population” in the US.
After a majority of you are stupid as fuck anyway.
Now there’s a r/brandnewsentence contender. Thiel, sane, and moral in the same sentence…from an account that hasn’t created posts about anything but anti DSA and pro capitalism rants in over a year. Sometimes multiple essay length ones per day. At least like some cute animal pictures, bro.
You might be the dumbest bootlicker I've come across recently, and thats saying something 🤣 good god, that was truly the dumbest thing you could have said. Its almost impressive🤣
Peter Thiel has no place on this earth. He and his ilk are some of the most evil parasites ever to live, and they need to be removed.
UBI is a horrifying outcome, because then your subsistence comes completely at the whim of the government. This is not something good to strive for.
Note, this isn't a "communism bad!" thing. This is a "how could you look at the current government and conclude putting the power to distribute money that keeps you alive in their hands?" thing.
So it depends where you live and the type of government that rules. A functioning representative democracy has a beneficial feedback loop to set the UBI minimum. An oligarchy or dictatorship does not.
I think that you always have to assume that, any power you give the government today, may be used by a government you vehemently disagree with in the future.
A great example of this is that one of the key authorities cited by Trump to enact tariffs was signed into law by Jimmy Carter. I would probably trust Jimmy Carter with this power. I would not (and it turns out for good reason!) trust Trump. But as soon as you give that power to government, you have to assume that eventually someone with less-than-good-intentions will use that power for their own ends.
This used to be a basic point of political science, but I think that it seems to have dropped out of discourse for some reason. Which is kind of inexplicable since many of Trump's actions have been enabled by authorities created in legislation signed by much better Presidents than him.
With respect to UBI, do not, absolutely do not, trust the government to support you. You have no idea what the government or political sentiment or economy will look like in 25 years.
How is that any different from a corporation that has a monopoly on resources? The only thing that restrains a corporation's hold on everyone is government regulation and competition. That, and the profit motive drives corporations to work to kill both government and competition. The only defense people have is that the government (when configured properly) represents people, not profit.
Corporations, by and large, don't have a monopoly on resources. There are close to 5000 companies in the US alone that have revenues larger than $1B. And there are tens of thousands in the $100M to $1B range.
As a worker, you have tremendous choice in who you work for. If an employers puts too many strings on your employment, you can just walk away to another. If the government instead fills the role of "the source of your the money you use to pay your expenses", you have only emigration or revolution as options if they start to misuse the leverage they have.
Not really interested in irrelevant short term changes. The long term is what matters. Food has never been cheaper even though it’s provided by the “whims of corporations”. Why is that?
It was cheaper last year, the year before that, the year before that, and the year before that. And it sure as shit looks like it will be more expensive next year, the year after that, and so on as climate change sets in. How exactly are you defining "short term?" Cause unless you have a crystal ball you appear to be talking out of your ass.
Federal governments the world over already control all of the things that make life for their citizens possible, and have for a long time, just at slightly higher levels of abstraction to the point that average people don't really think about it much if at all.
UBI doesn't have to be the only way to get an income. It can be there to give everyone a good basic standard of living, meaning no one is forced to work to survive. You want acres of gardens, or a collection of Lamborghinis, or to send your kids to the snottiest private schools? Then you had better develop some valuable skills that can make the money to do so.
UBI is only a good thing as a band-aid when the economic and political systems are broken and people are starving/suffering...as opposed to a popular revolution.
And since the actual profits of the AI industry are massively NEGATIVE, UBI based on those economics would see you inheriting a slice of the DEBT, as there is no net profit.
Best overheard description: “It’s like raiding your neighbors house because you’ve heard they have a higher credit limit. Congrats, you played yourself: you’ve earned credit card receipts, but no actual monies. “
Its actually something the Federal Government is uniquely good at doing. Its the purpose of a Federal Government to do the things that we all colectively need to do.
Yes, during times when those in government generally follow the norms and expectations at hand, and don't blatantly ignore the law to reward allies and punish enemies. The problem is this administration has shown there aren't actually strong institutions to maintain that. UBI could work for a few years, but how long until a strongman comes in and finds a way to weaponize it?
I am generally pro-government, especially when it comes to collective action. In the case of UBI, though, that is becoming entirely subservient to the good graces of the government. That is not a good outcome.
> UBI is a horrifying outcome, because then your subsistence comes completely at the whim of the government.
At least I can vote for the government. Where do I get enough capital to vote for the CEO who could downsize me tomorrow? Because that's who controls your subsistence right now.
...sure? And then you find another job. Painful in the short term but the vast majority of people survive just fine. If the government does it, though, good luck.
The whole point is your "for now" thing. Why do we think the government wouldn't end up playing games where certain people get denied UBI for political reasons? What about this current administration makes you think "they won't screw me over?" Like, remember when the administration tried withholding SNAP benefits from Democratic states just to punish them? What happens when that's done with UBI, and society doesn't have general employment to fall back on?
Do you legitimately believe folks that get laid off can't find new employment?
I'm in biotech, one of the industries hit hardest currently (not due to AI directly, but due to shifting in funding priorities). I'm well aware of the difficulties of the job market. Being unemployed for three or six months (or even longer!) isn't unsurvivable, especially with, you know, unemployment benefits.
UBI doesn't force people to work or go to the gulags, that's the main problem with communism. Plenty of incentives for free market trade with UBI, none for communism.
It’s either high enough that it causes mass numbers of people to quit work and devolve into isolated anti-social behavior (drinking, drugs, video games) or it’s too low for anyone to actually live off of.
I think that's a lie... people who have more than enough to live on generally don't take up drinking, drugs and video games but instead focus on making even more wealth for themselves, so there's no reason to think people with enough become anti-social... most anti-social crime is a result of poverty...
Even if it's too low to live off it is a relief.
But you can't do means testing without welfare traps that cause people to choose poverty and welfare over getting work and losing their benefits and being worse off.
UBI solves welfare traps that keep people in poverty. Wealthy people tend to pursue more wealth, only when that's not an option do you get the drugs and such... It's not wealthy people on the streets on the drugs, it's people trapped in means tested welfare poverty traps in these situations.
So, I think you're wrong and ignoring clear evidence to the contrary.
> people who have more than enough to live on generally don't take up drinking, drugs and video games but instead focus on making even more wealth for themselves, so there's no reason to think people with enough become anti-social
This is a selection bias. Yes, people who are ambitious self-starters do not become anti-social.
> most anti-social crime is a result of poverty
This is a flat-out lie. Crime is the result of deranged cultural factors, not poverty. Poor Asians commit crimes at a lower rate than rich African Americans.
> But you can't do means testing without welfare traps that cause people to choose poverty and welfare over getting work and losing their benefits and being worse off.
> This is a selection bias. Yes, people who are ambitious self-starters do not become anti-social.
No, even the children of wealthy go on to run businesses and better themselves. People with money tend to work for more, regardless of being 'ambitious self-starters' with small loans of a few million dollars from their parents yet probably don't work as hard as homeless to survive.
Unless you genuinely think poverty is a problem of not pulling on your bootstraps hard enough.
> This is a flat-out lie. Crime is the result of deranged cultural factors, not poverty. Poor Asians commit crimes at a lower rate than rich African Americans.
Regardless, the prisons are weighted heavily towards the poor.
> the gains of this technology are too great. It is unrealistic to try and revert back to yesteryear
The same could have been said of the printing press. Anybody could build one, anybody could copy books. We created new laws because we thought it was unjust that writers weren't getting paid, and we used taxpayer funded legal systems and even police to enforce those laws.
Why there is no will to do this now, when it's clearly just a handful of companies running this technology, is beyond me.
And heavily regulating the big US companies right now will have China conquer the global AI market within months. They have a lot less moral obligations in this regard, and a >90% public approval rate towards AI/LLM integration and usage. Doesn't even matter if that number is fake or real, because that is their public stance.
> As one software engineering youtuber put it, the gains of this technology are too great.
Are they though? I mean when you actually ask Licensed Radiologists in the US about the impact you'll find mostly marketing hype that has not translated meaningful gains to the field.
The largest impact in the medical sector has been medical scribes, but we all knew that way coming and has been, but LLMs/AI have basically done jack to the profession of Radiology. And our PE run hospitals would love to save on Radiology or reap higher billable services, which they have not. The second best use case have been to auto flag denials for insurers, but I wouldn't describe either of those cases are "too great" a technology given how they're actually being used IRL.
There is a lot of hyper around AI Companies despite the fact they got sent packing after only three weeks in Ukraine, they don't have anything on established munitions manufacturers despite their scary warnings of what their tech COULD do.
Isn't it odd only the West Coast, Silicon Valley Tech, RATIONALIST communities are having these doomer takes? I mean a ton of other countries are invested or have produced their own LLMs/GenAI in various ways and they don't seem to be panicking around the tech.
I think these doom loops are much more likely a byproduct of circular financing and commercial consolidation than anything else; AI/LLM in this case have just been an accelerant.
How do you explain the weird discrepancy between tech giants that advocate for the inevitable implementation of UBI, but rail against the implementation of socialism?
It's almost like UBI is just an imaginary carrot to motivate the particularly gullible, while the drivers of yhis economy systematically plunder the fields
But UBI doesn't work. If we all get UBI, then suddenly nobody gets UBI because our buying power goes down and effectively cancels it out. Supply and demand and all that. This is how we end up with empty shelves.
I have thought long and hard about that and couldn't find an answer. I hate capitalism. The only answer is to tax the ultra wealthy to oblivion. I want to cap assets+wealth at 100 mil and anything beyond that is taxed 100%. You don't need more than 100 mil to live in luxury for generations.
People like Bill Gates would still make Microsoft; they just wouldn't be miles above the common populace, as life should be.
That’s not how it works. Billionaires don’t have money in cash or in a bank, they are in perpetual debt. What exactly will you tax, their debt? Their stocks?
If they want 90M in assets, then they can have 10M in cash.
If they want 10M in assets, then they can have 90M in cash.
All other assets would be mandated to be sold for reasonable market price, kinda like an eminent domain applied to rich people to serve the greater good.
So now your mandating that people sell their house or assets? That is essentially theft. If you start literally stealing from people they will just leave.
I want to fix the problem but the solution is complicated and is not as simple as "steal from the rich and give to the poor". Even the most socialized successful first world economies like the Nordic countries don't do that.
That seems like saying jobs won’t work because everyone has jobs? And why would buying power go down if UBI replaced some of the income people make from jobs? Presumably there would be fewer jobs or fewer hours/less pay, so UBI would make things closer to status quo but with less work (and equality closer to perhaps the pre-Reagan era).
Say everyone gets UBI but some want extra money. Those people go flip burgers for an easy job. Now they get UBI and Burger money. Before, they would just get burger money. Now the pay floor is UBI + Burger money. Everyone just on UBI can no longer afford anything and needs extra income so they look for a job. Now everyone that can get a job can live because that's the pay floor. Anyone on UBI can no longer afford anything. UBI goes up to compensate.
It's a vicious cycle from there and it will only widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor while inflation wipes out the middle class.
And look where we are from that. There are talks of raising the minimum wage again because rents are growing faster than wages can keep up... so we raise minimum wage and rents go up.
It just eats more and more into the middle class until there's nothing left of it.
Im not sure why your being downvoted… This is how things work, it is a fact of economics. Seems people on this SR need to take Econ 101 or something. Even communist china understands this and has a capitalist based economy. Instead of UBI we need to provide basic services that compete with private sector.
The reason we have these huge wage gaps is because of runaway capitalism where we have uncompetitive policies and monopolies.
I’m not a supporter of UBI in general but this isn’t necessarily true. This would happen if the money was new money printed and added to the monetary pool but if the money being given out as UBI was money from the circulating monetary supply then we’d probably see a net for people at the poverty line. It would further stratify society and cause many other problems but there’s at least a way to do UBI without massive inflation the undermines it entirely.
Universal basic income would only cover the basics. It would be small. Lots of folks would still like to work and be a part of the middle class. People currently need housing and food abd their bills. The demand remains relatively similar. There might be small increases. (People might aim fof nice housing, they might buy luxuries more often abd they might get nicer fokd every now and again. As this guy points out no new money enters the system. Its just rearranged.
Moreover, circulating capital is good for the economy. It would likely lead the population becoming relatively wealthier. Moreover with the threat of job loss significantly lessened. Workers would have greater leverage on wages which would also rise.
Lots of people also drop out of the rental market because they can suddenly afford to buy. In our current system landlords could raise rents too. However the rental market is still a market. Market pressures still apply. The increased safety net for renters again allows for better leverage on rental costs. Its a lot easier to move to a cheaper place if you can absorb the deposit cost.
Instead of UBI, there should be a massive cut in taxes all across the board. We should be working without income/property taxes and let the AI capital gains take care of that.
Preventing copying by a technology stack (digital computers) designed to make copying as easy as possible at every level was always a stupid idea and a fool's errand. And fundamentally, the only problem with it is one of compensation, which suggests the model for compensation is wrong, rather than that the act of copying itself is wrong.
What will happen when only slop is left and we haven’t bothered to educate/ train the next generations? And not just the scientists, engineers, researchers but also the authors, artists etc. a machine code just rehashing slop endlessly with no innovation or passion or insight…
Sounds like idiocracy is about to become real.
Us authors and artists will continue to make art and write books even without getting paid for it, cos most of us are already doing that anyway.
The desire to create art is one of the most deeply human things that we do, and we do it whether we get paid or not.
On a side note: as an artist, my work is now worth more than it was before AI, simply because its made by a human. The kind of person who would consider a poster or a print for decoration is the kind of person who’s quite happy to use AI. But the kind of person who would buy an actual painting or artwork to put on their wall would never ever consider AI.
Yeah, I’m less worried about that. I am worried about a whole generation of kids that can’t do basic math in their head or understand how to write a paragraph.
Some kinds of authors, maybe. Google's AI summary on search results is cutting traffic to websites. All kinds of implications if it continues/escalates in the long term.
I am a teacher. Our school system recently disabled the AI summaries when a student doesn’t web search due to it making cheating too easy. I realized students don’t actually want to use websites. Too much reading and comparing of websites for best source.
Yes and yes, but no to your last part. I will gladly put a poster or print on my wall, but the standard for it is higher. Band posters from concerts I went to, prints by a local artist, sure! A print of Water Lillies? No. Video game, movie, or nerd prints? No. Ai art? Fuck no.
But I have a rad smoking frog that I got in upstate New York which I gladly framed.
This is all going to course correct like crazy. Workforce collapse when no one knows how to do anything and therefore cannot purchase anything, will not be tolerated by capitalism. The debt the AI “boom” is built on is going to be called in in about 18 months, and the whole weird bubble will be over. What we will get out of it is a marginally more powerful version of internet search, which is all that it is already
I honestly think that’s the plan. The wealthy are not concerned about longevity or having a sustainable world economy. They want to squeeze every bit of value out of the population as possible and leave everyone helpless so that they can rewrite the rules and continue to do whatever tf they want.
To try be somewhat optimistic. I think we will see a huge boom in the number of people going to live performances of human art in various forms. As a reaction to the saturation of other forms of static media due to AI.
AI music can go to hell. It all sounds the same and after you learn to hear it, you can't unhear it. The identical voices specific to each genre, the lyrics that makes no sense except to sound correct and melodies that are made up of the same chord progression. It's idiotic.
And yet you tell that to AI knob goblins and they'll say it's all made up or the price of progress to some imagined utopia (we are not headed for a utopia)
Im pretty certain by now that some of these people want to blow up the bubble as much as they can. When everything crashes and lower classes lose all they have theses billionaires will swoop in and consolidate their power. They know this will crash and burn, it’s what they want and with the trump regime in power "too big to fail" will be taken to the next level.
We're just incredibly eager for profit and thus we hear the popular thing is gonna be great, and since our society never punishes people for doing the popular thing, corporate culture can't cope.
They refuse to be held responsible for things, too much money is on the line, so they just do whatever is popular. AI could astroturf popularity and then it will be de facto popular, just like we've seen.
But it kinda had to put up or shut up, and the market seems in favor of the latter. People don't feel they've done the former.
One potential solution to this that I can forsee is the implementation of the 402 (payment required) status code which is similar to the famous 404 (not found) code that most people know.
How it would work is that if you are an AI bot or webcrawler wanting to access somone's creative work, they'll have to pay the author first through a micro transaction. With the amount of AI bots nowadays this can be a good business model - potentially worthwhile to make things free for humans but cost money for AIs.
But don’t the agentic AI’s have access to all the collective data that the entire AI system has. They pay once if you’re lucky and then the content has been added and is used a million times afterwards without additional payment ever happening.
It would be up to the content owners to set the price on their paywall. If it's a photo, news article or a piece of art than you might charge a hundred, a thousand or whatever amount you think is worth it to sell your work to an AI model forever.
If it's a data source that is dynamic (like a weather station) or a source that might be cited or referenced by an AI on a regular basis (encyclopedias) than you might prefer a smaller micro transaction.
It's ultimately better for the AI industry for content creators to get paid because it incents them to keep creating to keep AI models fed with fresh data.
But it also locks all that content behind paywalls for you and I.
Honestly, if an article is behind a paywall, I don't read it. I'm not going to sign up to 12 different online papers to read AI generated articles, where the first paragraph is written specifically to drum up excitement while the next four inform the reader that the GIANT, SHOCKING THING is a mountain made out of a molehill.
Right and how do you identify a human versus a bot from a programming perspective? It's not that simple. We still havent solved that problem in all the time the internet has existed.
The only true way to do it is have a central authority in the physical world distribute tokens used as human identification. Something that proves a trusted human verified you are also human.
And you'd also need that central authority to monitor everything their "human pass" is accessing, or they'd just be sold to the AI. Sadly that puts the odds of an already long shot idea to zero.
I think compliance has to be voluntary or apart of alignment training.
As a whole the industry wants to make sure this is enforced because without fresh data AI will slowly degrade - however there will always be cheaters making this somewhat of a prisoner's dilemma.
Evidence of outcome.. Not that of the training already done. Any frontier model creating something new. And I mean creative, not a rehash or enhancement or modification.
Generally no, the models do not learn in realtime as they come across new data. Any agent running on that context will utilize the data until it falls out of context, but any new context will not automatically "know" it.
That said, I would not be surprised if the frontier labs have systems in place to take any novel data they see and automatically toss it into their training set for the next run.
A transactional system wouldn't really help for similar reasons, though. Much of their data already comes from some data laundering company that got it illicitly, and then is resold to the labs.
That ship sailed already in many ways. All the data was infused in to the models, new data and creations are not that relevant anymore for future AI capacity to create.
For one, the world is still turning and events are still going on. All that is fresh data going on every day. News stories, polls, scientific discoveries, innovations - all the things that haven't happened, haven't been invented, or haven't been imagined are not yet on the internet.
If someone wants to create something new, tell a new story or share a new piece of data or information on the internet, needs to put a paywall up for bots or else they're implicitly giving it to AI for free.
Think about it: an AI that hasn't been trained on data past 2026 isn't worth much in 2030. As such, AI will need to continuously ingest data or else be as useful as a parapalegic Helen Keller.
The tech for that already exists, but oftentimes the issue is that if you don't allow bot traffic, you don't exist.
Now it is not about training as much as it is about the bots searching for you and your information. Unless you are doing something very rare or specific, somebody else will have an incentive to drive traffic and offer information for free. It's raw economics at this point, and game theory will tell you that people don't suddenly agree to do what is best for everyone.
We are rapidly getting to the point, if not already passed it, where that no longer is true. AI drives no traffic at all, so you already don't exist regardless if you allow the crawling or not. We are already seeing this play out, where outlets are putting up stricter paywalls because organic search traffic and ad revenue cannot pay the bills anymore.
I think the thing that makes the most sense for us for them to directly pay creators when their info is used. It’s the same thing YouTube and other platforms do.
Funny enough there’s a technology that could make this system a reality, proof of digital ownership would allow people to charge for their creations. Unfortunately everyone hates that technology because it was used for some ridiculous shit when it first went mainstream, so we’d have to rebrand it. But yeah, this is the problem that nfts could solve.
No, NFTs don't solve this problem. This isn't even the problem that NFTs claim to solve. Ignoring for a moment that they suck, NFTs are about proof of ownership of some unique (non-fungible) good. This is about ensuring payment for the use of intellectual property. There is a techology for that, it's called copyright law, it just needs to be applied.
PS: if you reply to tell me about "smart contracts", I'll scream.
> One potential solution to this that I can forsee is the implementation of the 402 (payment required) status code which is similar to the famous 404 (not found) code that most people know.
Two years ago I built a reverse proxy that did exactly that. It detected bots and put them into a 402 flow that required the bot to pay an mtx. If the bot paid, it got the page served and a license to use the page for training. If it didn't pay, the bot got ignored.
Yes it’s called a paradox and anyone with a sliver of intellectual capacity already called it as soon as this saga began in earnest.
The issue is the US as a nation has been systematically mismanaged for decades, on purpose, so as to extract its wealth and accelerate it into the hands of the few.
The AI bonanza can’t be stopped because it’s the only thing buoying up the Ponzi scheme. Without this frenzy of thievery the whole charlatan’s delight of an economy goes kaboom.
What are we going to do? Hold copyright thieves accountable? Return value and dignity to the worker instead of investors? That’s an entirely different country with entirely different values, likely comprised of an entirely different people.
All the Pyramid schemes do really seem to have become literal Ponzi schemes. Paying off IOU’s with IOU’s is a Ponzi scheme. Hedge funds. Private equity. Wall Street. All have wandered into literal lawbreaking schemes with next to no enforcement or antitrust outside of like one company in the early 2000’s and two scapegoats, male and female I bet anyone could tell me all 3 names.
It's only a paradox if you expect the system to last.
It's a hatchling worried about breaking the shell it lives in. It's only focus is on trying to make the egg ever larger so that it will always be safe.
I get the exiting the egg is scary and we might get eaten when we get out but trying to stay inside is just slow suicide.
it's really dumb, perhaps there are big winners right now, like all the major players doing data centers and their hardware, but eventually, if we don't have more money, because AI takes all the jobs, who is going to keep on paying for AI?
If humanity decided that cloning was essentially bad, why aren't we doing the same about AI?
Well if AI and robotics lives up to the science fiction-esque hype we're being fed then there won't be a need to 'pay' for the AI. It's not hyperbolic to say the fundamentals of a capitalist society will cease to exist. It is quite hilarious that capitalisms collapse will be through the seizure of the means of production; not by the proletariat but instead by the bourgeoisie in a comical twist of Marxist irony.
To be blunt we will, to all intents and purposes, be in a post matieralistic society - the only limits to our growth will be energy and raw materials. If you want to achieve something all you, and I use 'you' loosely here, need do is get your robots to build another robot.
Now there is a utopia here. It's possible that our society becomes one of exteme abundance where everybody gets what they want. Where robotics and AI enable us to spend our time pursuing hobbies, socialising and generally frolicing around merrily.
But equally there's a very real risk of there being two very distinct classes of human beings. Those in power who can have and achieve whatever they want, and, most importantly, who decide what everyone else can have. And the rest of us who are forced to survive on pittance in some dystopian underworld.
In the short term if AI reaches a point where by it's good enough to replace us but not quite good enough to revolutionise the capitalist process then the whole thing collapses. As you said, if nobody has any money then there's no need for the AI to produce anything.
“It's possible that our society becomes one of exteme abundance where everybody gets what they want. Where robotics and Al enable us to spend our time pursuing hobbies, socialising and generally frolicing around merrily.”
Even that utopia if it became true may not be so great. I don’t think the human brain works that way. We’re happiest in a healthy balance on the edge of the comfort zone, with a bit of pressure but also spaces of recovery and relaxation.
Hobbies are beloved because they’re a contrast to work stress. I am sure a lot of individuals could challenge themselves out of the comfort zone without monetary or career pressure just because that’s how we thrive. But a lot of people would also fall into the abyss of emptiness and lack of purpose. Not to forget, the workplace is for surprisingly many people the only space of social interaction outside the own family (if there is one).
> But a lot of people would also fall into the abyss of emptiness and lack of purpose.
The idea of a "job" is a phenomenon that has existed for like 400 years out of 20,000 of human history.
There are plenty of places in the world today where agrarian and subsistence lifestyles exist in reasonable harmony. Western civilization is what has created stress.
I’m not convinced that humanity has decided that cloning is bad. At least not in any meaningful way. We just haven’t quite managed to make it profitable enough yet.
>Our AI content strategy has started a ‘doom loop’ that will hurt the performance of our models and the entire web at the same time
The part that makes me sad is that they do not care about the effect on humans who want to participate in art, instead they care only about their models.
Ultimately, who is this AI making art FOR? It seems like we have AI services making AI advertisements for AI products that are reviewed by AI, then people use AI trained browser add-ons to remove AI content and AI advertisements, and the only people getting paid are the AI company.
But say you are a lover of, say, pop art. Pop art expresses itself in advertisements all the time: Toucan Sam, Tony the Tiger, Baby Yoda, you get the idea. These things are cultural icons. Even if they were invented in a board room, there was still a goofy dude in the basement drawing the images, creating. You could connect with the work of a person, and that one person could touch hundreds of lives. The Coca-Cola Santa and polar bears, and the semi truck decked out with lights, are artistic creations that people have real nostalgia for. They are a piece of our culture, but they were still ultimately created by a person.
AI is taking over that sort of advertising art. There is no longer a person. But that won't stop some of this AI art from becoming iconic.
That art will end up being referenced by actual humans. Now, this isn't so bad when a human references another human, because they are able to draw upon the emotional impact of the original work as a reference point for their own. When you reference AI, however, there is no creator. There is no intent. They aren't really trying to evoke anything, because they aren't TRYING in the sense that you or I try to accomplish something.
Ingesting that art and letting it become part of you when it's not a real creation with true human intent behind it, then letting it influence you is going to have a corrosive influence on the art that you then make.
I dont see how Ai can’t have a meaningful impact on culture? If a person generates a pop art icon from Ai and a company uses it.
Is it worth less than a human spending hours in a basement drawing it? What if the person tweaks it over several changes?
If that second question pulls you even a little bit towards being acceptable, then that tells you something. That for some reason you are weighing the effort to determine the quality of the output, not the output alone.
Humans are going to have to deal with a creative crisis soon. I honestly feel for writers, artists, directors, producers, content creators… their expertise will soon slowly be handed over to a technology every person with a phone or pc has
These doom loops are something big tech literally has already faced during the first publishing crisis of the late 90s, early 2000s internet. This is a lesson that should have already been learned, but I suppose those people who learned have left leadership, and now it is time for us to once again learn this lesson.
The existence of an open shared publishing space depends on content generators, who expect certain value for their efforts. If you undermine them, they will stop publishing their work, and you will have less of a base to steal new content from.
At some point creators need to be rewarded or the entire public forum will rot away and all new content will be created in hundreds of little walled gardens.
Unchecked power and short term personal gain/greed is the reason we're here. But I'm not sure there was ever a long term plan, even for those at the tippy top until very recently, only immediate gratification. Even in the face of calamity, their 'plan' seems to be things like escaping to jungle compounds and luxury bunkers. And the 'opportunity' now for those with no morals and ethics (so, like, everyone who has reached billionaire status) is just stripping the economy for parts, hostile takeover style. They're even preventing the next successful self-made m/b/trillionares. That privilege will go to their own dimwitted nepo babies. It's bleak.
Maybe they are not needed either or cfos or insurers, just data and ownership of ai revenue streams. Yup we are basically destroying our own moat one job at a time
But this is also leads to a failure of the accounting firm. - why pay for an accounting firm who will use an AI agent when I can use an AI agent to do the accounting myself?
You’re then just cutting out the middleman.
A lot of the ‘savings’ companies make by not hiring humans will also come back full circle because consumers can just use AI themselves without having to hire anyone.
But what will those two juniors do? There's no productive work they can do better than the agents that are working around them... they're a net drain on the company.
Will they even get paid? They'll be generating little revenue. Will being a junior professional become something you pay to do?
If you think a machine can exercise professional judgment, you have never held a position where you exercise professional judgment.
More importantly, if the government tries to force it on everyone, it will go poorly for them. No one wants a computer as a judge, or a computer giving their application for food stamps a thumbs up or down. Look at the backlash already against health insurance companies. It’s only going to get worse, and anyone who tries to codify it will be hit with extreme opposition.
Your second point makes sense, but how can you say that AI will never exercise professional judgement? These models have only been around for 4 years and have replaced tons of Software Engineers, Artists, Marketers, etc. It's hard to say where it's going to be in 5 years let alone 10 and onward.
"Professional judgement" is a nebulous term that seems like a mysterious human thing until these AI programs start to use their massive amount of resources to duplicate it. If you have an AI program which has consumed tens of thousands of pages of legal documents, psychological research, and human stories, I think it can just as easily replicate what a mature professional would do in the same situation.
How the law applies to specific facts is always arguable. No matter how many resources you throw at AI, it will continue to screw up any tasks that require applying creative and critical thinking to difficult problems, such as complex legal problems. Your approach only makes sense if you think a mature professional is merely a button pusher or a paper shuffler that mechanically applies knowledge to a certain set of facts.
That is simply not the case. However, the anti-intellectuals in this world are all too happy to cede their autonomy to some tech billionaire with a god complex that they will try to convince everyone otherwise. To everyone’s detriment.
But tell me more about how ai generated slop art is the height of culture.
Just wait until the right wing mutilation of English finally hits the training data. When half of a third of the country gets their speaking patterns and value system from an incontinent, illiterate upper/downer addict, that’s when it will all really start spiraling.
100% that’s the long term play by geopolitical rivals.
We’ll have to delete whole eras from the training data.
The biggest hammer that needs to drop, is that all LLM output is derivative work of everything in its corpus. Our copyright laws already have the tools to deal with this, we just aren't enforcing them on these companies.
Systemic naked short selling, billions of FTDs, collateral valuation fraud, and trying to hide decades of corruption while running out of places to hide despite having achieved complete regulatory capture is creating "doom loops" all over the economy.
And this administration isn't causing it, it's front-running it.
They're not gonna be able to plug all the leaks, but, as you can tell, they ain't trying to.
So it's inevitable that at some point the dam's gonna blow.
At that point, your precious "moral high ground" is gonna be as valuable as an obsolete World Reserve Currency.
Ok so if the dollar loses its value how are the people perpetrating this going to keep all their wealth if it’s in dollars? By buying up gold, land and properties?
One of the primary issues with AI that people don’t talk about is that since AI is commonly used to run simulations to avoid disasters, we have those disasters modeled more precisely than we do scenarios in which we’re thriving.
A thriving calculus is needed for counter-balance, not simply disaster aversion.
[OP] One-Emu-1103 | 21 hours ago
Recently unredacted legal documents and depositions in the New York Times‘ lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI revealed something extraordinary: executives knew full well of the destructive powers of AI when they rushed to launch products featuring the tech in the wake of the explosive success of OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
Internal Microsoft documents quoted by the newspaper’s lawyers warned of an ugly reality now playing out across the entire economy: “doom loops,” in which AI monetizes the work of human creatives while undermining the economic systems that funded their work in the first place.
sonofalando | 20 hours ago
The entire tech is built on plagiarism
Rosc | 20 hours ago
Yeah, it turns out that “move fast and break things” mostly refers to the law
coffeesnob72 | 19 hours ago
And people’s lives. And the environment
Rerrun | 18 hours ago
It's very sovereign citizenesque. But for the few.
Judgementpumpkin | 17 hours ago
Amongst things.
theydontcare_ | 16 hours ago
These are the people the law is meant to protect so it’s fine!
unia_7 | 19 hours ago
Only on anti-tech reddit it does. Everywhere else, it really doesn't.
moreliketen | 18 hours ago
US state AGs keep suing Meta, so they seem to agree with anti-tech reddit.
unia_7 | 17 hours ago
Dude you are stuck in your own head. "Move fast and break things" refers to how the discovery process in startups operates, not to Meta breaking the law. No need to make bad-faith arguments just to prove your point.
Rerrun | 17 hours ago
Uber adopted the moto and they definitely broke the law in the early days.
unia_7 | 17 hours ago
Maybe, but thousands of other startups didn't. So it clearly does not "mostly" refer to breaking the law.
Reddit comments read like there is a teenager on an ego trip writing them. Exaggeration and blatant lying in half of them.
Rerrun | 17 hours ago
Just throw us in the wood chipper already.
unia_7 | 17 hours ago
Start with therapy.
mrtrololo27 | 7 hours ago
bUt EvErYoNe'S An EgOtIsTiCaL tEeNaGeR
No, maybe you're just a moron missing the point. Stop being duped.
unia_7 | 7 hours ago
Ooh an ad hominem, a sure sign that you are out of actual arguments. You belong on r/conspiracy.
DeliciousArcher8704 | 10 hours ago
Anthropic broke records with how large the lawsuits against them for theft of IP
moparcam | 18 hours ago
And wage theft.
TheDividendReport | 20 hours ago
All work is built on the shoulders of the generations of people before it.
As one software engineering youtuber put it, the gains of this technology are too great. It is unrealistic to try and revert back to yesteryear
If there is a case to be made for plagiarism, fine, let's talk about compensating the entire population for their harvested data.
UBI is the logical outcome.
New_Apple_7339 | 20 hours ago
They don’t care about other people’s lives. Get it twisted you are a rounding error in their books.
TheDividendReport | an hour ago
"They"
Who are they?
Use your vote.
Otherwise, tell me your plan for the future.
notjim | 18 hours ago
I mean ai and tech leaders have talked a lot about supporting ubi, basic wealth funds and other measures to dampen the blow and support people. I’m sure people think they’re lying, but it’s hard to say from their public statements.
Dick_Lazer | 14 hours ago
It's no different from Trump promising DOGE checks. Of course they're gonna pay lip service to such ideas during the transition phase of AI. Notice no laws like that are anywhere close to being passed though, and good luck trying to get any leverage when everybody is out of a job.
New_Apple_7339 | 14 hours ago
And yet they can spend millions on forcing more data center through but none on lobbying ubi???
Yea I too would say anything when I earn 200k everytime I blink.
Before you yap, I work in the tech industry and rub shoulders with insiders, they look at your existence as a problem and laugh about how a world war would solve all their problems with “over population” in the US.
After a majority of you are stupid as fuck anyway.
dane83 | 15 hours ago
>I’m sure people think they’re lying, but it’s hard to say from their public statements.
You've learned nothing from Marge vs the Monorail.
coke_and_coffee | 18 hours ago
Lmao gtfo with this weirdo leftist doomer conspiracy bullshit
Fair-Search-2324 | 17 hours ago
Please - we all saw Thiel doesn’t even know if humanity is worth it.
coke_and_coffee | 17 hours ago
Thiel is a diehard Catholic. His morality and ethics are 1000X more sane than the average person.
Late-Assignment8482 | 17 hours ago
Now there’s a r/brandnewsentence contender. Thiel, sane, and moral in the same sentence…from an account that hasn’t created posts about anything but anti DSA and pro capitalism rants in over a year. Sometimes multiple essay length ones per day. At least like some cute animal pictures, bro.
SheboyganJoe | 15 hours ago
The man who thinks a 20 year old woman who wants to protect the environment is the Anti-Christ?
coke_and_coffee | 8 hours ago
Yes.
Fair-Search-2324 | 17 hours ago
Yea i bet Pope Francis is a real fan lol
southpalito | 17 hours ago
The guy who argued humanity shouldn’t survive.
mrtrololo27 | 7 hours ago
You might be the dumbest bootlicker I've come across recently, and thats saying something 🤣 good god, that was truly the dumbest thing you could have said. Its almost impressive🤣
Peter Thiel has no place on this earth. He and his ilk are some of the most evil parasites ever to live, and they need to be removed.
coke_and_coffee | 7 hours ago
Lmao, tell me you do nothing all day but browse social media without telling me…
mrtrololo27 | 7 hours ago
Why are you telling me you scroll social media all day when it was already crystal clear you're that stunning mix of overconfident and illiterate?
New_Apple_7339 | 14 hours ago
Lmao lil bro spends too much time on Reddit.
I’ll see you at Wendy’s make sure you drop fresh tendies when I enter, I’ll tip you well.
coke_and_coffee | 8 hours ago
I’m a chemical engineer
PolyhedralZydeco | 19 hours ago
We know the billionaire will exterminate the species before losing a red cent
dyslexda | 19 hours ago
> UBI is the logical outcome.
UBI is a horrifying outcome, because then your subsistence comes completely at the whim of the government. This is not something good to strive for.
Note, this isn't a "communism bad!" thing. This is a "how could you look at the current government and conclude putting the power to distribute money that keeps you alive in their hands?" thing.
schrodingers_gat | 18 hours ago
Our sustenance is now governed by the whims of corporations. I think the government is better.
BluePrintSpec | 13 hours ago
So it depends where you live and the type of government that rules. A functioning representative democracy has a beneficial feedback loop to set the UBI minimum. An oligarchy or dictatorship does not.
mcsul | 7 hours ago
I think that you always have to assume that, any power you give the government today, may be used by a government you vehemently disagree with in the future.
A great example of this is that one of the key authorities cited by Trump to enact tariffs was signed into law by Jimmy Carter. I would probably trust Jimmy Carter with this power. I would not (and it turns out for good reason!) trust Trump. But as soon as you give that power to government, you have to assume that eventually someone with less-than-good-intentions will use that power for their own ends.
This used to be a basic point of political science, but I think that it seems to have dropped out of discourse for some reason. Which is kind of inexplicable since many of Trump's actions have been enabled by authorities created in legislation signed by much better Presidents than him.
With respect to UBI, do not, absolutely do not, trust the government to support you. You have no idea what the government or political sentiment or economy will look like in 25 years.
schrodingers_gat | 5 hours ago
How is that any different from a corporation that has a monopoly on resources? The only thing that restrains a corporation's hold on everyone is government regulation and competition. That, and the profit motive drives corporations to work to kill both government and competition. The only defense people have is that the government (when configured properly) represents people, not profit.
mcsul | 3 hours ago
Corporations, by and large, don't have a monopoly on resources. There are close to 5000 companies in the US alone that have revenues larger than $1B. And there are tens of thousands in the $100M to $1B range.
As a worker, you have tremendous choice in who you work for. If an employers puts too many strings on your employment, you can just walk away to another. If the government instead fills the role of "the source of your the money you use to pay your expenses", you have only emigration or revolution as options if they start to misuse the leverage they have.
schrodingers_gat | 3 hours ago
>Corporations, by and large, don't have a monopoly on resources.
Oh really?
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU05/20220119/114345/HHRG-117-JU05-20220119-SD006.pdf
>As a worker, you have tremendous choice in who you work for.
Oh really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation
Splashy01 | 17 hours ago
Depends on which government. Some may withhold it until you vote for them or something like that.
Alundil | 7 hours ago
"May?"
We've already seen this with disaster relief to "blue" states being minimized, delayed, or outright ignored.
sac666 | 6 hours ago
Government is definitely not better
dyslexda | 18 hours ago
You can always change employers. You can't exactly change governments.
schrodingers_gat | 18 hours ago
You need to read up on the history of "company towns" if you think that is a reasonable answer
pperiesandsolos | 17 hours ago
What a weird response. Right now, I can go work at 100 different companies. I cannot just choose a different government
Late-Assignment8482 | 17 hours ago
In any democracy you can work to change the government. Built in union. A corporation you can only leave or stay.
pperiesandsolos | 16 hours ago
Saying that you can’t change a company is so strange to me. It’s like you people have this totally warped view of what a company is lol
Edit: this guy blocked me for saying that companies are easier to change than governments lol. In an economics subreddit
FancyEmployee8672 | 16 hours ago
Then why don’t you?
pperiesandsolos | 16 hours ago
Because I like the company I’m at?
CyanideCat7706 | 18 hours ago
Yah except like all companies are owned by the same 4 companies so? Plus the government is owned by them too
dyslexda | 18 hours ago
Really? Every company you might be employed by is "owned by the same 4 companies?" Not particularly interested in hyperbole, thanks.
And even if that were true...four is larger than one.
bobandgeorge | 17 hours ago
You get an opportunity to change governments every two years.
SheboyganJoe | 15 hours ago
What is voting?
coke_and_coffee | 18 hours ago
Food has literally never been cheaper.
schrodingers_gat | 17 hours ago
It was literally cheaper last year
coke_and_coffee | 17 hours ago
Not really interested in irrelevant short term changes. The long term is what matters. Food has never been cheaper even though it’s provided by the “whims of corporations”. Why is that?
Xuri88 | 17 hours ago
It was cheaper last year, the year before that, the year before that, and the year before that. And it sure as shit looks like it will be more expensive next year, the year after that, and so on as climate change sets in. How exactly are you defining "short term?" Cause unless you have a crystal ball you appear to be talking out of your ass.
coke_and_coffee | 8 hours ago
Again, not interested in irrelevant short term movements. Over the long term, food always gets cheaper.
Capitalism works. Educate yourself.
roodammy44 | 15 hours ago
Long term, food will get more expensive as climate change really hits.
coke_and_coffee | 8 hours ago
lol no. Climate change will increase growing seasons, re-green the Sahel, increase rainfall across the world, and make food even more abundant.
Hautamaki | 19 hours ago
Federal governments the world over already control all of the things that make life for their citizens possible, and have for a long time, just at slightly higher levels of abstraction to the point that average people don't really think about it much if at all.
AlexisAsgard | 9 hours ago
UBI doesn't have to be the only way to get an income. It can be there to give everyone a good basic standard of living, meaning no one is forced to work to survive. You want acres of gardens, or a collection of Lamborghinis, or to send your kids to the snottiest private schools? Then you had better develop some valuable skills that can make the money to do so.
codeprimate | 18 hours ago
UBI is only a good thing as a band-aid when the economic and political systems are broken and people are starving/suffering...as opposed to a popular revolution.
...which is where we are, and inevitably headed.
ReleaseQuiet2428 | 18 hours ago
well, maybe if Government could put some competent and ethical team on charge
FlobiusHole | 16 hours ago
It’s not already in their hands?
RutabegaHasenpfeffer | 4 hours ago
And since the actual profits of the AI industry are massively NEGATIVE, UBI based on those economics would see you inheriting a slice of the DEBT, as there is no net profit.
Best overheard description: “It’s like raiding your neighbors house because you’ve heard they have a higher credit limit. Congrats, you played yourself: you’ve earned credit card receipts, but no actual monies. “
Previous_Cattle_5545 | 12 hours ago
And also, 'communism bad'.
PoopyisSmelly | 19 hours ago
Its actually something the Federal Government is uniquely good at doing. Its the purpose of a Federal Government to do the things that we all colectively need to do.
dyslexda | 19 hours ago
Yes, during times when those in government generally follow the norms and expectations at hand, and don't blatantly ignore the law to reward allies and punish enemies. The problem is this administration has shown there aren't actually strong institutions to maintain that. UBI could work for a few years, but how long until a strongman comes in and finds a way to weaponize it?
I am generally pro-government, especially when it comes to collective action. In the case of UBI, though, that is becoming entirely subservient to the good graces of the government. That is not a good outcome.
VeteranSergeant | 5 hours ago
> UBI is a horrifying outcome, because then your subsistence comes completely at the whim of the government.
At least I can vote for the government. Where do I get enough capital to vote for the CEO who could downsize me tomorrow? Because that's who controls your subsistence right now.
dyslexda | 5 hours ago
You can change employers. You can't change governments, outside of a single vote.
VeteranSergeant | 5 hours ago
Yes, but the converse is that the government can't change my citizenship status (for now). My employer can change my employment status at will.
dyslexda | 5 hours ago
...sure? And then you find another job. Painful in the short term but the vast majority of people survive just fine. If the government does it, though, good luck.
The whole point is your "for now" thing. Why do we think the government wouldn't end up playing games where certain people get denied UBI for political reasons? What about this current administration makes you think "they won't screw me over?" Like, remember when the administration tried withholding SNAP benefits from Democratic states just to punish them? What happens when that's done with UBI, and society doesn't have general employment to fall back on?
VeteranSergeant | 4 hours ago
>Painful in the short term but the vast majority of people survive just fine.
Just how long have you been retired, sir?
dyslexda | 4 hours ago
Do you legitimately believe folks that get laid off can't find new employment?
I'm in biotech, one of the industries hit hardest currently (not due to AI directly, but due to shifting in funding priorities). I'm well aware of the difficulties of the job market. Being unemployed for three or six months (or even longer!) isn't unsurvivable, especially with, you know, unemployment benefits.
coke_and_coffee | 18 hours ago
But also…communism bad. For LOTS of reasons.
WhyNotSlavery | 5 hours ago
UBI doesn't force people to work or go to the gulags, that's the main problem with communism. Plenty of incentives for free market trade with UBI, none for communism.
coke_and_coffee | 5 hours ago
UBI is nonsensical.
It’s either high enough that it causes mass numbers of people to quit work and devolve into isolated anti-social behavior (drinking, drugs, video games) or it’s too low for anyone to actually live off of.
Means testing is the only viable method.
WhyNotSlavery | 5 hours ago
I think that's a lie... people who have more than enough to live on generally don't take up drinking, drugs and video games but instead focus on making even more wealth for themselves, so there's no reason to think people with enough become anti-social... most anti-social crime is a result of poverty...
Even if it's too low to live off it is a relief.
But you can't do means testing without welfare traps that cause people to choose poverty and welfare over getting work and losing their benefits and being worse off.
UBI solves welfare traps that keep people in poverty. Wealthy people tend to pursue more wealth, only when that's not an option do you get the drugs and such... It's not wealthy people on the streets on the drugs, it's people trapped in means tested welfare poverty traps in these situations.
So, I think you're wrong and ignoring clear evidence to the contrary.
coke_and_coffee | 5 hours ago
> people who have more than enough to live on generally don't take up drinking, drugs and video games but instead focus on making even more wealth for themselves, so there's no reason to think people with enough become anti-social
This is a selection bias. Yes, people who are ambitious self-starters do not become anti-social.
> most anti-social crime is a result of poverty
This is a flat-out lie. Crime is the result of deranged cultural factors, not poverty. Poor Asians commit crimes at a lower rate than rich African Americans.
> But you can't do means testing without welfare traps that cause people to choose poverty and welfare over getting work and losing their benefits and being worse off.
Yep! Welfare is bad.
WhyNotSlavery | 5 hours ago
> This is a selection bias. Yes, people who are ambitious self-starters do not become anti-social.
No, even the children of wealthy go on to run businesses and better themselves. People with money tend to work for more, regardless of being 'ambitious self-starters' with small loans of a few million dollars from their parents yet probably don't work as hard as homeless to survive.
Unless you genuinely think poverty is a problem of not pulling on your bootstraps hard enough.
> This is a flat-out lie. Crime is the result of deranged cultural factors, not poverty. Poor Asians commit crimes at a lower rate than rich African Americans.
Regardless, the prisons are weighted heavily towards the poor.
> Yep! Welfare is bad.
Until it's you who needs it, yes...
StoneyBalogna7 | 3 hours ago
Good perspective. People can also be beaten with carrots.
WhyNotSlavery | 7 hours ago
They giving you zero UBI now... you are totally fucked unless a wealthy patron looks kindly enough on you to let you work for them.
How could anything be worse than zero subsistence at the whim of the government?
If you can't work when you get a UBI, you're gonna be even worse off not getting work without it.
NinjaLanternShark | 14 hours ago
The point is to have a government you don't despise and distrust.
The Republicans have convinced Americans government can’t ever be good. The rest of the world doesn’t believe that.
janethefish | 5 hours ago
>If there is a case to be made for plagiarism, fine, let's talk about compensating the entire population for their harvested data.
>UBI is the logical outcome.
I agree. The gen AI and large language models are based on the collective output of humanity. A tax/fee and dividend/UBI seems like the answer.
Bonus: a fee and dividend model works for other stuff too, like carbon emissions!
JustLionDown | 19 hours ago
> the gains of this technology are too great. It is unrealistic to try and revert back to yesteryear
The same could have been said of the printing press. Anybody could build one, anybody could copy books. We created new laws because we thought it was unjust that writers weren't getting paid, and we used taxpayer funded legal systems and even police to enforce those laws.
Why there is no will to do this now, when it's clearly just a handful of companies running this technology, is beyond me.
But don't buy that this stuff is inevitable.
Whole_Elk_1692 | 15 hours ago
I think it's way more than a handful of companies using this tech. It's like already revolutionised like all software writing a few times by now.
justaRndy | 11 hours ago
And heavily regulating the big US companies right now will have China conquer the global AI market within months. They have a lot less moral obligations in this regard, and a >90% public approval rate towards AI/LLM integration and usage. Doesn't even matter if that number is fake or real, because that is their public stance.
So what options are left, realistically?
coffeesnob72 | 19 hours ago
Literally will kill you before they ever consider giving away a cent
DTFH_ | 5 hours ago
> As one software engineering youtuber put it, the gains of this technology are too great.
Are they though? I mean when you actually ask Licensed Radiologists in the US about the impact you'll find mostly marketing hype that has not translated meaningful gains to the field.
The largest impact in the medical sector has been medical scribes, but we all knew that way coming and has been, but LLMs/AI have basically done jack to the profession of Radiology. And our PE run hospitals would love to save on Radiology or reap higher billable services, which they have not. The second best use case have been to auto flag denials for insurers, but I wouldn't describe either of those cases are "too great" a technology given how they're actually being used IRL.
There is a lot of hyper around AI Companies despite the fact they got sent packing after only three weeks in Ukraine, they don't have anything on established munitions manufacturers despite their scary warnings of what their tech COULD do.
Isn't it odd only the West Coast, Silicon Valley Tech, RATIONALIST communities are having these doomer takes? I mean a ton of other countries are invested or have produced their own LLMs/GenAI in various ways and they don't seem to be panicking around the tech.
I think these doom loops are much more likely a byproduct of circular financing and commercial consolidation than anything else; AI/LLM in this case have just been an accelerant.
Spiggots | 9 hours ago
How do you explain the weird discrepancy between tech giants that advocate for the inevitable implementation of UBI, but rail against the implementation of socialism?
It's almost like UBI is just an imaginary carrot to motivate the particularly gullible, while the drivers of yhis economy systematically plunder the fields
KaiPRoberts | 20 hours ago
But UBI doesn't work. If we all get UBI, then suddenly nobody gets UBI because our buying power goes down and effectively cancels it out. Supply and demand and all that. This is how we end up with empty shelves.
alltehmemes | 20 hours ago
So, maybe capitalism needs to be rethought (if not outright rejected)?
KaiPRoberts | 20 hours ago
I have thought long and hard about that and couldn't find an answer. I hate capitalism. The only answer is to tax the ultra wealthy to oblivion. I want to cap assets+wealth at 100 mil and anything beyond that is taxed 100%. You don't need more than 100 mil to live in luxury for generations.
People like Bill Gates would still make Microsoft; they just wouldn't be miles above the common populace, as life should be.
Azulsleeps | 13 hours ago
Have you looked at Socialism? I think you'd like it. 👍
Representative-Rip90 | 16 hours ago
That’s not how it works. Billionaires don’t have money in cash or in a bank, they are in perpetual debt. What exactly will you tax, their debt? Their stocks?
KaiPRoberts | 7 hours ago
That's up to them.
If they want 90M in assets, then they can have 10M in cash.
If they want 10M in assets, then they can have 90M in cash.
All other assets would be mandated to be sold for reasonable market price, kinda like an eminent domain applied to rich people to serve the greater good.
Representative-Rip90 | 4 hours ago
So now your mandating that people sell their house or assets? That is essentially theft. If you start literally stealing from people they will just leave.
I want to fix the problem but the solution is complicated and is not as simple as "steal from the rich and give to the poor". Even the most socialized successful first world economies like the Nordic countries don't do that.
belabensa | 20 hours ago
That seems like saying jobs won’t work because everyone has jobs? And why would buying power go down if UBI replaced some of the income people make from jobs? Presumably there would be fewer jobs or fewer hours/less pay, so UBI would make things closer to status quo but with less work (and equality closer to perhaps the pre-Reagan era).
KaiPRoberts | 20 hours ago
It raises the pay floor.
Say everyone gets UBI but some want extra money. Those people go flip burgers for an easy job. Now they get UBI and Burger money. Before, they would just get burger money. Now the pay floor is UBI + Burger money. Everyone just on UBI can no longer afford anything and needs extra income so they look for a job. Now everyone that can get a job can live because that's the pay floor. Anyone on UBI can no longer afford anything. UBI goes up to compensate.
It's a vicious cycle from there and it will only widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor while inflation wipes out the middle class.
belabensa | 18 hours ago
Feel like those where the same arguments against a minimum wage
KaiPRoberts | 18 hours ago
And look where we are from that. There are talks of raising the minimum wage again because rents are growing faster than wages can keep up... so we raise minimum wage and rents go up.
It just eats more and more into the middle class until there's nothing left of it.
Representative-Rip90 | 16 hours ago
Im not sure why your being downvoted… This is how things work, it is a fact of economics. Seems people on this SR need to take Econ 101 or something. Even communist china understands this and has a capitalist based economy. Instead of UBI we need to provide basic services that compete with private sector.
The reason we have these huge wage gaps is because of runaway capitalism where we have uncompetitive policies and monopolies.
GoldenFox7 | 20 hours ago
I’m not a supporter of UBI in general but this isn’t necessarily true. This would happen if the money was new money printed and added to the monetary pool but if the money being given out as UBI was money from the circulating monetary supply then we’d probably see a net for people at the poverty line. It would further stratify society and cause many other problems but there’s at least a way to do UBI without massive inflation the undermines it entirely.
KaiPRoberts | 20 hours ago
UBI only works in small studies where a tiny population gets it but the rest don't; that's why we see positive results from it.
Once an entire population is on UBI, it's game over for anyone but the ultra wealthy.
Ok_Performer_7501 | 18 hours ago
Universal basic income would only cover the basics. It would be small. Lots of folks would still like to work and be a part of the middle class. People currently need housing and food abd their bills. The demand remains relatively similar. There might be small increases. (People might aim fof nice housing, they might buy luxuries more often abd they might get nicer fokd every now and again. As this guy points out no new money enters the system. Its just rearranged.
Moreover, circulating capital is good for the economy. It would likely lead the population becoming relatively wealthier. Moreover with the threat of job loss significantly lessened. Workers would have greater leverage on wages which would also rise.
Basically everyone would get wealthier actually
KaiPRoberts | 18 hours ago
Due to supply + demand, baseline rent goes up and eliminates any gain from the UBI. More people can afford to rent where they want to be.
It works in small pockets but not when everyone gets it.
Ok_Performer_7501 | 11 hours ago
Lots of people also drop out of the rental market because they can suddenly afford to buy. In our current system landlords could raise rents too. However the rental market is still a market. Market pressures still apply. The increased safety net for renters again allows for better leverage on rental costs. Its a lot easier to move to a cheaper place if you can absorb the deposit cost.
mrjowei | 19 hours ago
Instead of UBI, there should be a massive cut in taxes all across the board. We should be working without income/property taxes and let the AI capital gains take care of that.
coffeesnob72 | 19 hours ago
Keep dreaming
gikigill | 18 hours ago
You won't have income or ownership so what tax will you be paying to begin with?
The Epstein class wants to rent you and make sure you rent everything too.
Individual-Nebula927 | 4 hours ago
Capital gains? From the industry that famously is not profitable, and currently has no path to ever be profitable?
D1N0F7Y | 14 hours ago
UBI is incredibly dangerous: your life depends on a single decision. It can't be structural.
SgtBaxter | 11 hours ago
UBI is just communism rebranded.
Richandler | 14 hours ago
Opensource isn't plagiarism. It's sharing. Most tech code copyright is the equivalent of basic english sentences.
LLMs are different. They're literally copying the whole book. Nay, the whole library.
orbitaldan | 5 hours ago
Preventing copying by a technology stack (digital computers) designed to make copying as easy as possible at every level was always a stupid idea and a fool's errand. And fundamentally, the only problem with it is one of compensation, which suggests the model for compensation is wrong, rather than that the act of copying itself is wrong.
qinghairpins | 19 hours ago
What will happen when only slop is left and we haven’t bothered to educate/ train the next generations? And not just the scientists, engineers, researchers but also the authors, artists etc. a machine code just rehashing slop endlessly with no innovation or passion or insight…
Sounds like idiocracy is about to become real.
Enlightened_Gardener | 17 hours ago
Us authors and artists will continue to make art and write books even without getting paid for it, cos most of us are already doing that anyway.
The desire to create art is one of the most deeply human things that we do, and we do it whether we get paid or not.
On a side note: as an artist, my work is now worth more than it was before AI, simply because its made by a human. The kind of person who would consider a poster or a print for decoration is the kind of person who’s quite happy to use AI. But the kind of person who would buy an actual painting or artwork to put on their wall would never ever consider AI.
AnySwimming6364 | 13 hours ago
Yeah, I’m less worried about that. I am worried about a whole generation of kids that can’t do basic math in their head or understand how to write a paragraph.
Upbeat_Parking_7794 | 11 hours ago
It is up to us. Calculators exist for a long time and we still teach kids to do calculations, at least in my country.
oiled_hobbit | 7 hours ago
They are already calling 200 word writing samples an essay.
TightlyWhitey | 13 hours ago
Some kinds of authors, maybe. Google's AI summary on search results is cutting traffic to websites. All kinds of implications if it continues/escalates in the long term.
Own_Boysenberry_0 | 11 hours ago
I am a teacher. Our school system recently disabled the AI summaries when a student doesn’t web search due to it making cheating too easy. I realized students don’t actually want to use websites. Too much reading and comparing of websites for best source.
Rupperrt | 16 hours ago
Yes but some art works require a lot of effort and money. I am sure there will be patrons etc. and maybe the effect of making true art more valuable..
BannedfromFrontPage | an hour ago
Yes and yes, but no to your last part. I will gladly put a poster or print on my wall, but the standard for it is higher. Band posters from concerts I went to, prints by a local artist, sure! A print of Water Lillies? No. Video game, movie, or nerd prints? No. Ai art? Fuck no.
But I have a rad smoking frog that I got in upstate New York which I gladly framed.
Interneteldar | 13 hours ago
What about prints made by actual artists?
Alternative-Bison615 | 18 hours ago
This is all going to course correct like crazy. Workforce collapse when no one knows how to do anything and therefore cannot purchase anything, will not be tolerated by capitalism. The debt the AI “boom” is built on is going to be called in in about 18 months, and the whole weird bubble will be over. What we will get out of it is a marginally more powerful version of internet search, which is all that it is already
Scurro | 3 hours ago
> marginally more powerful version of internet search, which is all that it is already
A marginally more powerful search that's a roll of a dice if the answers are even real.
Smooth-Brilliant-940 | 7 hours ago
I honestly think that’s the plan. The wealthy are not concerned about longevity or having a sustainable world economy. They want to squeeze every bit of value out of the population as possible and leave everyone helpless so that they can rewrite the rules and continue to do whatever tf they want.
quantisegravity_duh | 15 hours ago
To try be somewhat optimistic. I think we will see a huge boom in the number of people going to live performances of human art in various forms. As a reaction to the saturation of other forms of static media due to AI.
AlcopopTart | 14 minutes ago
we are being put in a digital enclosure
Bogdanovist_Rebel | 20 hours ago
They can’t all be like Richard Hendricks. Thats why he’s the leader of Tethics.
ironicfall | 16 hours ago
Dudes a thumbass
pinkyepsilon | 21 hours ago
I mean the doom loops is literally the value corporations see in it. Short term of course- time to start planning the economic bailout of everything.
crowcawer | 20 hours ago
Government agency workers have been doing more with less while the Big Whigs sit in their cushioned seats.
The doom loop started when unchecked political donations began to rocket beyond reasonable salaries.
They are rebranding the topic to something they can point a finger at.
Z3r0sama2017 | 15 hours ago
Not enough money, unless they plan on taxing the wealthy, so their isn't enough money.
saml01 | 19 hours ago
AI music can go to hell. It all sounds the same and after you learn to hear it, you can't unhear it. The identical voices specific to each genre, the lyrics that makes no sense except to sound correct and melodies that are made up of the same chord progression. It's idiotic.
Outside_Manner_8352 | 7 hours ago
So country music...
thortgot | 6 hours ago
Classical AI music is not terrible. I have an "infinite" supply of mediocre music which is quite nice.
Busterlimes | 20 hours ago
Just like the Oil Companies when their scientists brought up climate change. Capitalism is the least economical system.
FearlessPark4588 | 19 hours ago
There's too much money in it to care about that.
[OP] One-Emu-1103 | 19 hours ago
It's going to suck us dry
Alundil | 7 hours ago
I read this in a datacenter voice
ThyMorningPeckle | 17 hours ago
And yet you tell that to AI knob goblins and they'll say it's all made up or the price of progress to some imagined utopia (we are not headed for a utopia)
Big-Pitch2366 | 12 hours ago
Bill Gates seems to be the only guy to sound the alarm.
Atticus_Taintwater | 19 hours ago
Is that even notable though?
Figure that thought was obvious to everyone as soon as they heard how the technology works.
For whatever else these tech moguls are they aren't boneheads.
exoduas | 17 hours ago
Im pretty certain by now that some of these people want to blow up the bubble as much as they can. When everything crashes and lower classes lose all they have theses billionaires will swoop in and consolidate their power. They know this will crash and burn, it’s what they want and with the trump regime in power "too big to fail" will be taken to the next level.
spebeepbeep | 9 hours ago
bingo. its all orchestrated
cuetheFog | 2 hours ago
They’re addicted to sociopathy, I’m addicted to being poor. I don’t like where this seems to be headed
Clawdius_Talonious | 20 hours ago
We're just incredibly eager for profit and thus we hear the popular thing is gonna be great, and since our society never punishes people for doing the popular thing, corporate culture can't cope.
They refuse to be held responsible for things, too much money is on the line, so they just do whatever is popular. AI could astroturf popularity and then it will be de facto popular, just like we've seen.
But it kinda had to put up or shut up, and the market seems in favor of the latter. People don't feel they've done the former.
GoppleSmanger | 21 hours ago
One potential solution to this that I can forsee is the implementation of the 402 (payment required) status code which is similar to the famous 404 (not found) code that most people know.
How it would work is that if you are an AI bot or webcrawler wanting to access somone's creative work, they'll have to pay the author first through a micro transaction. With the amount of AI bots nowadays this can be a good business model - potentially worthwhile to make things free for humans but cost money for AIs.
Lord_Vesuvius2020 | 20 hours ago
But don’t the agentic AI’s have access to all the collective data that the entire AI system has. They pay once if you’re lucky and then the content has been added and is used a million times afterwards without additional payment ever happening.
GoppleSmanger | 20 hours ago
It would be up to the content owners to set the price on their paywall. If it's a photo, news article or a piece of art than you might charge a hundred, a thousand or whatever amount you think is worth it to sell your work to an AI model forever.
If it's a data source that is dynamic (like a weather station) or a source that might be cited or referenced by an AI on a regular basis (encyclopedias) than you might prefer a smaller micro transaction.
It's ultimately better for the AI industry for content creators to get paid because it incents them to keep creating to keep AI models fed with fresh data.
elebrin | 9 hours ago
But it also locks all that content behind paywalls for you and I.
Honestly, if an article is behind a paywall, I don't read it. I'm not going to sign up to 12 different online papers to read AI generated articles, where the first paragraph is written specifically to drum up excitement while the next four inform the reader that the GIANT, SHOCKING THING is a mountain made out of a molehill.
shepherdofthesea | 8 hours ago
The crux of the idea is that content is paywalled for bots but not for humans.
p1-o2 | 8 hours ago
Right and how do you identify a human versus a bot from a programming perspective? It's not that simple. We still havent solved that problem in all the time the internet has existed.
The only true way to do it is have a central authority in the physical world distribute tokens used as human identification. Something that proves a trusted human verified you are also human.
j48u | 6 hours ago
And you'd also need that central authority to monitor everything their "human pass" is accessing, or they'd just be sold to the AI. Sadly that puts the odds of an already long shot idea to zero.
p1-o2 | 6 hours ago
Correct 😀 hence why it remains unsolved
GoppleSmanger | 5 hours ago
I think compliance has to be voluntary or apart of alignment training.
As a whole the industry wants to make sure this is enforced because without fresh data AI will slowly degrade - however there will always be cheaters making this somewhat of a prisoner's dilemma.
End3rWi99in | 20 hours ago
Frontier models don't really need the same kind of training data like this anymore anyway. They already have everything they need from creative works.
Throw2020awayMar | 18 hours ago
Any public document or demo of this?
End3rWi99in | 17 hours ago
Public document of how much existing training data frontier models already have? I am not really sure what you're asking.
Cupakov | 14 hours ago
Erdos 1196 was solved using a novel approach that human mathematicians didn’t think was feasible
__Geg__ | 10 hours ago
Is that the one it solved by using a pre-print paper linked to by two Mathamaticans talking about it on Mastadon?
Cupakov | 9 hours ago
No
Throw2020awayMar | 16 hours ago
Evidence of outcome.. Not that of the training already done. Any frontier model creating something new. And I mean creative, not a rehash or enhancement or modification.
er1992 | 14 hours ago
I don't think you understood what he meant
saynay | 9 hours ago
Generally no, the models do not learn in realtime as they come across new data. Any agent running on that context will utilize the data until it falls out of context, but any new context will not automatically "know" it.
That said, I would not be surprised if the frontier labs have systems in place to take any novel data they see and automatically toss it into their training set for the next run.
A transactional system wouldn't really help for similar reasons, though. Much of their data already comes from some data laundering company that got it illicitly, and then is resold to the labs.
ElectricSpice | 19 hours ago
Cloudflare is trying to push this. https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-pay-per-crawl/
FlatulistMaster | 19 hours ago
That ship sailed already in many ways. All the data was infused in to the models, new data and creations are not that relevant anymore for future AI capacity to create.
GoppleSmanger | 19 hours ago
That's demonstrably not true.
For one, the world is still turning and events are still going on. All that is fresh data going on every day. News stories, polls, scientific discoveries, innovations - all the things that haven't happened, haven't been invented, or haven't been imagined are not yet on the internet.
If someone wants to create something new, tell a new story or share a new piece of data or information on the internet, needs to put a paywall up for bots or else they're implicitly giving it to AI for free.
Think about it: an AI that hasn't been trained on data past 2026 isn't worth much in 2030. As such, AI will need to continuously ingest data or else be as useful as a parapalegic Helen Keller.
FlatulistMaster | 17 hours ago
The tech for that already exists, but oftentimes the issue is that if you don't allow bot traffic, you don't exist.
Now it is not about training as much as it is about the bots searching for you and your information. Unless you are doing something very rare or specific, somebody else will have an incentive to drive traffic and offer information for free. It's raw economics at this point, and game theory will tell you that people don't suddenly agree to do what is best for everyone.
saynay | 9 hours ago
We are rapidly getting to the point, if not already passed it, where that no longer is true. AI drives no traffic at all, so you already don't exist regardless if you allow the crawling or not. We are already seeing this play out, where outlets are putting up stricter paywalls because organic search traffic and ad revenue cannot pay the bills anymore.
notjim | 18 hours ago
I think the thing that makes the most sense for us for them to directly pay creators when their info is used. It’s the same thing YouTube and other platforms do.
jimbobjabroney | 17 hours ago
Funny enough there’s a technology that could make this system a reality, proof of digital ownership would allow people to charge for their creations. Unfortunately everyone hates that technology because it was used for some ridiculous shit when it first went mainstream, so we’d have to rebrand it. But yeah, this is the problem that nfts could solve.
whupazz | 10 hours ago
No, NFTs don't solve this problem. This isn't even the problem that NFTs claim to solve. Ignoring for a moment that they suck, NFTs are about proof of ownership of some unique (non-fungible) good. This is about ensuring payment for the use of intellectual property. There is a techology for that, it's called copyright law, it just needs to be applied.
PS: if you reply to tell me about "smart contracts", I'll scream.
TimSylvester_ | 2 hours ago
> One potential solution to this that I can forsee is the implementation of the 402 (payment required) status code which is similar to the famous 404 (not found) code that most people know.
Two years ago I built a reverse proxy that did exactly that. It detected bots and put them into a 402 flow that required the bot to pay an mtx. If the bot paid, it got the page served and a license to use the page for training. If it didn't pay, the bot got ignored.
It worked really well!
But we couldn't get any websites to use it.
Direlion | 20 hours ago
Yes it’s called a paradox and anyone with a sliver of intellectual capacity already called it as soon as this saga began in earnest.
The issue is the US as a nation has been systematically mismanaged for decades, on purpose, so as to extract its wealth and accelerate it into the hands of the few.
The AI bonanza can’t be stopped because it’s the only thing buoying up the Ponzi scheme. Without this frenzy of thievery the whole charlatan’s delight of an economy goes kaboom.
What are we going to do? Hold copyright thieves accountable? Return value and dignity to the worker instead of investors? That’s an entirely different country with entirely different values, likely comprised of an entirely different people.
snowflake37wao | 11 hours ago
All the Pyramid schemes do really seem to have become literal Ponzi schemes. Paying off IOU’s with IOU’s is a Ponzi scheme. Hedge funds. Private equity. Wall Street. All have wandered into literal lawbreaking schemes with next to no enforcement or antitrust outside of like one company in the early 2000’s and two scapegoats, male and female I bet anyone could tell me all 3 names.
Danne660 | 8 hours ago
Paying off IOU’s with IOU’s is not a Ponzi scheme, pretending that you are paying it with regular profits makes it a Ponzi.
bluehands | 14 hours ago
It's only a paradox if you expect the system to last.
It's a hatchling worried about breaking the shell it lives in. It's only focus is on trying to make the egg ever larger so that it will always be safe.
I get the exiting the egg is scary and we might get eaten when we get out but trying to stay inside is just slow suicide.
lllama | 13 hours ago
A snake eating its own tail is not a paradox.
snowflake37wao | 11 hours ago
its a 3 headed snake
bayinskiano | 20 hours ago
it's really dumb, perhaps there are big winners right now, like all the major players doing data centers and their hardware, but eventually, if we don't have more money, because AI takes all the jobs, who is going to keep on paying for AI?
If humanity decided that cloning was essentially bad, why aren't we doing the same about AI?
Wostear | 19 hours ago
Well if AI and robotics lives up to the science fiction-esque hype we're being fed then there won't be a need to 'pay' for the AI. It's not hyperbolic to say the fundamentals of a capitalist society will cease to exist. It is quite hilarious that capitalisms collapse will be through the seizure of the means of production; not by the proletariat but instead by the bourgeoisie in a comical twist of Marxist irony.
To be blunt we will, to all intents and purposes, be in a post matieralistic society - the only limits to our growth will be energy and raw materials. If you want to achieve something all you, and I use 'you' loosely here, need do is get your robots to build another robot.
Now there is a utopia here. It's possible that our society becomes one of exteme abundance where everybody gets what they want. Where robotics and AI enable us to spend our time pursuing hobbies, socialising and generally frolicing around merrily.
But equally there's a very real risk of there being two very distinct classes of human beings. Those in power who can have and achieve whatever they want, and, most importantly, who decide what everyone else can have. And the rest of us who are forced to survive on pittance in some dystopian underworld.
In the short term if AI reaches a point where by it's good enough to replace us but not quite good enough to revolutionise the capitalist process then the whole thing collapses. As you said, if nobody has any money then there's no need for the AI to produce anything.
Rupperrt | 15 hours ago
“It's possible that our society becomes one of exteme abundance where everybody gets what they want. Where robotics and Al enable us to spend our time pursuing hobbies, socialising and generally frolicing around merrily.”
Even that utopia if it became true may not be so great. I don’t think the human brain works that way. We’re happiest in a healthy balance on the edge of the comfort zone, with a bit of pressure but also spaces of recovery and relaxation.
Hobbies are beloved because they’re a contrast to work stress. I am sure a lot of individuals could challenge themselves out of the comfort zone without monetary or career pressure just because that’s how we thrive. But a lot of people would also fall into the abyss of emptiness and lack of purpose. Not to forget, the workplace is for surprisingly many people the only space of social interaction outside the own family (if there is one).
Poonchow | 13 hours ago
This is why the The Matrix created a facsimile of life in 1999, the "apex" of humanity.
Hacking_the_Gibson | 6 hours ago
> But a lot of people would also fall into the abyss of emptiness and lack of purpose.
The idea of a "job" is a phenomenon that has existed for like 400 years out of 20,000 of human history.
There are plenty of places in the world today where agrarian and subsistence lifestyles exist in reasonable harmony. Western civilization is what has created stress.
Smooth-Brilliant-940 | 7 hours ago
I’m not convinced that humanity has decided that cloning is bad. At least not in any meaningful way. We just haven’t quite managed to make it profitable enough yet.
see-more_options | 5 hours ago
Because AI is good. Cloning also, in fact, and it is slowly coming back, as religious die off.
elebrin | 9 hours ago
>Our AI content strategy has started a ‘doom loop’ that will hurt the performance of our models and the entire web at the same time
The part that makes me sad is that they do not care about the effect on humans who want to participate in art, instead they care only about their models.
Ultimately, who is this AI making art FOR? It seems like we have AI services making AI advertisements for AI products that are reviewed by AI, then people use AI trained browser add-ons to remove AI content and AI advertisements, and the only people getting paid are the AI company.
see-more_options | 6 hours ago
Nothing stops you from participating in art.
elebrin | 5 hours ago
I am not sure I agree.
But say you are a lover of, say, pop art. Pop art expresses itself in advertisements all the time: Toucan Sam, Tony the Tiger, Baby Yoda, you get the idea. These things are cultural icons. Even if they were invented in a board room, there was still a goofy dude in the basement drawing the images, creating. You could connect with the work of a person, and that one person could touch hundreds of lives. The Coca-Cola Santa and polar bears, and the semi truck decked out with lights, are artistic creations that people have real nostalgia for. They are a piece of our culture, but they were still ultimately created by a person.
AI is taking over that sort of advertising art. There is no longer a person. But that won't stop some of this AI art from becoming iconic.
That art will end up being referenced by actual humans. Now, this isn't so bad when a human references another human, because they are able to draw upon the emotional impact of the original work as a reference point for their own. When you reference AI, however, there is no creator. There is no intent. They aren't really trying to evoke anything, because they aren't TRYING in the sense that you or I try to accomplish something.
Ingesting that art and letting it become part of you when it's not a real creation with true human intent behind it, then letting it influence you is going to have a corrosive influence on the art that you then make.
South-Attorney-5209 | 12 minutes ago
I dont see how Ai can’t have a meaningful impact on culture? If a person generates a pop art icon from Ai and a company uses it. Is it worth less than a human spending hours in a basement drawing it? What if the person tweaks it over several changes?
If that second question pulls you even a little bit towards being acceptable, then that tells you something. That for some reason you are weighing the effort to determine the quality of the output, not the output alone.
Humans are going to have to deal with a creative crisis soon. I honestly feel for writers, artists, directors, producers, content creators… their expertise will soon slowly be handed over to a technology every person with a phone or pc has
OnlyHalfBrilliant | 5 hours ago
Well there was a person from whom the AI company stole their art.
deneo5 | 6 hours ago
rhymes with dot com bubble if you ask me
Multidream | 13 hours ago
These doom loops are something big tech literally has already faced during the first publishing crisis of the late 90s, early 2000s internet. This is a lesson that should have already been learned, but I suppose those people who learned have left leadership, and now it is time for us to once again learn this lesson.
The existence of an open shared publishing space depends on content generators, who expect certain value for their efforts. If you undermine them, they will stop publishing their work, and you will have less of a base to steal new content from.
At some point creators need to be rewarded or the entire public forum will rot away and all new content will be created in hundreds of little walled gardens.
Redbell57 | 10 hours ago
Unchecked power and short term personal gain/greed is the reason we're here. But I'm not sure there was ever a long term plan, even for those at the tippy top until very recently, only immediate gratification. Even in the face of calamity, their 'plan' seems to be things like escaping to jungle compounds and luxury bunkers. And the 'opportunity' now for those with no morals and ethics (so, like, everyone who has reached billionaire status) is just stripping the economy for parts, hostile takeover style. They're even preventing the next successful self-made m/b/trillionares. That privilege will go to their own dimwitted nepo babies. It's bleak.
Oddball_bfi | 13 hours ago
AI now out performs junior accountants.
So the sensible thing to do is replace your junior accountants with the better performing AIs.
AI plus capitalism effectively demands that the industry self-steralise. No juniors leads to no seniors in less than a generation.
MurkyCress521 | 8 hours ago
Plenty of market actors incur a loss to gain a profit later. Junior accounts are an investment if you think you'll need senior accountants later.
dukercrd | 5 hours ago
Maybe they are not needed either or cfos or insurers, just data and ownership of ai revenue streams. Yup we are basically destroying our own moat one job at a time
skins4life2621 | 11 hours ago
It does not effectively demand the self-sterilization of accounting as a profession.
It means less juniors not zero. Firms will not go full AI and lose all that knowledge. They will keep a few humans around.
I think the issue is not: "Why pay for 20 accountants when we can pay 0 and use AI?"
The issue is: "Why pay for 20 accountants when we can pay 2 and use AI?"
DirtyleedsU1919 | 7 hours ago
But this is also leads to a failure of the accounting firm. - why pay for an accounting firm who will use an AI agent when I can use an AI agent to do the accounting myself?
You’re then just cutting out the middleman.
A lot of the ‘savings’ companies make by not hiring humans will also come back full circle because consumers can just use AI themselves without having to hire anyone.
The only winner is the AI companies
BrogenKlippen | 7 hours ago
My F500 has the same conundrum - we can cut costs, but if everyone else does as well then we won’t have consumers.
swedishfalk | 7 hours ago
the ai company isnt the winners if its free....
ReflectedImage | 18 minutes ago
Nonsense, the AI companies will also be going bankrupt.
Whilst it cost trillions to develop, anyone with $10 million and a couple years can produce a commodity version, $400 per person.
Devilpig13 | 10 hours ago
What is the functional difference between those two scenarios?
justaRndy | 11 hours ago
That's 90% as bad and will still lead to the collapse of economy and society as we know it - but maybe a bit later :/
Danne660 | 8 hours ago
No it won't, you won't need as many seniors in the future.
BrogenKlippen | 7 hours ago
But people will still need income
Danne660 | 5 hours ago
They can get income by working a job.
Oddball_bfi | 10 hours ago
But what will those two juniors do? There's no productive work they can do better than the agents that are working around them... they're a net drain on the company.
Will they even get paid? They'll be generating little revenue. Will being a junior professional become something you pay to do?
1-Dollar-Doge-Coins | 6 hours ago
> Will they even get paid? They'll be generating little revenue.
The accounting function at a corporation is already a cost center; they've never existed to generate revenue.
DutyBusy9905 | 3 hours ago
Yeah but that's the *next* CEO's problem.
TreeThreat | 11 hours ago
Do we still need seniors in 20 years of AI progression?
zeroman987 | 7 hours ago
Yes. Either companies will be liable for AI errors, or clients won’t use companies that use AI.
You need a human because AI is not capable of exercising professional judgment and will never be allowed to do so in a sane world.
Known-Damage-7879 | 5 hours ago
How do we know that AI 5 or 10 years from now won't be able to exercise professional judgment?
zeroman987 | 5 hours ago
If you think a machine can exercise professional judgment, you have never held a position where you exercise professional judgment.
More importantly, if the government tries to force it on everyone, it will go poorly for them. No one wants a computer as a judge, or a computer giving their application for food stamps a thumbs up or down. Look at the backlash already against health insurance companies. It’s only going to get worse, and anyone who tries to codify it will be hit with extreme opposition.
Known-Damage-7879 | 5 hours ago
Your second point makes sense, but how can you say that AI will never exercise professional judgement? These models have only been around for 4 years and have replaced tons of Software Engineers, Artists, Marketers, etc. It's hard to say where it's going to be in 5 years let alone 10 and onward.
"Professional judgement" is a nebulous term that seems like a mysterious human thing until these AI programs start to use their massive amount of resources to duplicate it. If you have an AI program which has consumed tens of thousands of pages of legal documents, psychological research, and human stories, I think it can just as easily replicate what a mature professional would do in the same situation.
zeroman987 | 3 hours ago
How the law applies to specific facts is always arguable. No matter how many resources you throw at AI, it will continue to screw up any tasks that require applying creative and critical thinking to difficult problems, such as complex legal problems. Your approach only makes sense if you think a mature professional is merely a button pusher or a paper shuffler that mechanically applies knowledge to a certain set of facts.
That is simply not the case. However, the anti-intellectuals in this world are all too happy to cede their autonomy to some tech billionaire with a god complex that they will try to convince everyone otherwise. To everyone’s detriment.
But tell me more about how ai generated slop art is the height of culture.
Cool-Contribution-68 | 6 hours ago
Doesn't "being able to operate AI accounting agents" just become the basic job requirements of a junior accountant?
PeachScary413 | 6 hours ago
No they should put fries in the bag like all the SWEs
Vusiwe | 10 hours ago
Just wait until the right wing mutilation of English finally hits the training data. When half of a third of the country gets their speaking patterns and value system from an incontinent, illiterate upper/downer addict, that’s when it will all really start spiraling.
100% that’s the long term play by geopolitical rivals.
We’ll have to delete whole eras from the training data.
berryer | 16 hours ago
The biggest hammer that needs to drop, is that all LLM output is derivative work of everything in its corpus. Our copyright laws already have the tools to deal with this, we just aren't enforcing them on these companies.
NextGen-Panic | 16 hours ago
No it's not.
Systemic naked short selling, billions of FTDs, collateral valuation fraud, and trying to hide decades of corruption while running out of places to hide despite having achieved complete regulatory capture is creating "doom loops" all over the economy.
And this administration isn't causing it, it's front-running it.
They're not gonna be able to plug all the leaks, but, as you can tell, they ain't trying to.
So it's inevitable that at some point the dam's gonna blow.
At that point, your precious "moral high ground" is gonna be as valuable as an obsolete World Reserve Currency.
PeachScary413 | 6 hours ago
Oh no.. is this an ape in the wild? 🥲 r/gme_meltdown
saulisdating | 10 hours ago
Ok so if the dollar loses its value how are the people perpetrating this going to keep all their wealth if it’s in dollars? By buying up gold, land and properties?
mayorofdumb | 9 hours ago
Ding ding ding, they have more of everything than you, why not have a few million yen or whatever
JabberBody | 14 hours ago
One of the primary issues with AI that people don’t talk about is that since AI is commonly used to run simulations to avoid disasters, we have those disasters modeled more precisely than we do scenarios in which we’re thriving.
A thriving calculus is needed for counter-balance, not simply disaster aversion.