"The US is the most aggressive nation on Earth. They leave the British empire in the dust. Since 9/11 the US had slaughtered 4.5 MILLION people. Prior to 9/11, the US had slaughtered millions more, all in the name of profits."
Those that know and have been to Venezuela have said, the US needs to stay the hell away from Venezuela. It is considered Vietnam on steroids. Hills, mountains, jungles, population armed to the teeth and oh by the way, they hate Mericans. It will turn quickly into gorilla warfare.
Keep in mind there are 700,000 Venezuelans already in the US, and their families will be on the receiving end of those missiles. Our infrastructure is wide open, when we destroy the Caracas potable water plant (because you know that will be one of the first targets) they'd better post guards on the water purification plants for every major US city.
Looks like Trump snorted up some warlord aspirations.
Any 'leader' in history. King, president, Tsar, pope, you name it, they all became players in war schemes. Those who make most war live forever in the rewritten history of the most agressive winner.
"Reuters reports that in 2024 the Biden administration had intelligence showing that the IDF was using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza. But Biden continued shipping genocide weapons to the Israelis the entire time he was in office.
You’ll still periodically see online liberals trying to shame leftists for not voting for Kamala, but the more information comes out about what the Biden administration was up to during that time the more genocidal they look. Biden-Harris are looking worse with time, not better."
Had Harris the basic duplicity to have temporarily pretended to give a shit about Palestine, she might well have won.
I was very impressed with KH's political boneheadedness. She spat in RFK Jr's face when they could have kept him on board for next to nothing. That might have been the election right there.
Very well said Feral. If there was even the attempt to pretend to care about Palestine, it could've been a factor in delivering her the presidency. Yet, her disdain and indifference to their plight was so strong, she didn't even bother making that minimal effort, and lost the race and faded into the background
Venezuela will be FAR worse than Vietnam. And on top of that, Russia and China are standing by to assist, though China likely has more invested. And the rest of Latin America will come to their defense. The US has gone full on insane. They do not know what they are about to unleash.
Caitlin, it's amazing that you continue to 'double down' on being quite wrong about AI (not in the sense that it doesn't have negative effects, but in the sense that it has many positive effects and uses too). Your view seems to be quite BIASED (instead of balanced and comprehensive).
More and more people are going to continue to use AI and Generative AI (whether you want them to or not). And 'shaming people' that use AI (just because you don't understand AI) doesn't look good.
For example, CJ>>"Only those who are emotionally stunted and incapable of meaningful human connection will find them to be stimulating conversationalists and companions." Not true. Not in the least. Maybe you might want to do some research on the MANY ways people are ALREADY using AI to seek help where no other options are found, how it provides MORE access to people to help themselves that have less resources to spend on 'expensive alternatives', and more.
CJ>>"Like so much else capitalism produces, it’s a product that’s designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator."
Again, not true. Maybe you might want to do some research on HOW AI is used in aiding researchers write research papers (by doing the drudge work), how it helps software developers and testers in assisting with boiler-plate and mundane and repetitive tasks, how it helps children that don't have access to teachers/educational resources fill-in-the-gaps, how it helps teachers in grading student work, thus saving them more time for 'teaching', and I could go on....
CJ>>"Generative AI stuff only looks impressive to mediocre people...We can only appreciate something up to the level of our own adeptness."
Again, very wrong. I can appreciate Beethoven and Chopin's compositions WITHOUT 'my adeptness' being up to level. The same applies to appreciation of almost everything. Humans are CAPABLE of appreciating things of much HIGHER LEVELS than their own level.
I have to wonder (since your bias against AI comes across as more emotional and irrational rather than a thoughtful examination and deliberation of the technology), on what basis are you forming your opinions? What is your 'sample size' for arriving at the assumptions/opinions you do? Is your data being generated by your OWN confirmation bias on the subject? Are you looking at data (and examples) that go against your 'bias/opinion' when attempting to understand AI's impact on society? Are you, for some reason, locked into black-and-white thinking on this technology? Is doom and gloom the only thing you see?
Caitlin is an artist, poet, and essayist who has fulfilling personal relationships. Thus, AI has little to offer her.
For others, it is a useful tool. For example, my sister is a web designer, and AI has been a great help on the back end, with programming and debugging. She's a savvy user and an old veteran in her field, so she knows to control use of it on the front end, with writing copy and generating images, where many can detect over reliance on AI and a lack of human touch. I have found AI very helpful in understanding the daunting math used in graduate level economic theory.
There are many concerns about AI, including those raised by Caitlin, but AI is not all good or bad.
Actually, AI is a great tool for CREATORS too! How so?
(1) Freeing up time and resources -> AI automates repetitive tasks, allowing individuals to focus on higher-level creative thinking. This shift enables more time for innovation and strategic decision-making, fostering an environment where creativity can flourish.
(2) Idea generation -> AI tools can quickly generate a wide range of ideas and solutions. By analyzing vast datasets, AI identifies patterns and suggests unconventional approaches, which can inspire human users to think outside the box.
(3) Collaboration -> Used correctly, AI can act as a partner in the creative process, providing fresh perspectives and enhancing human creativity rather than replacing it.
(4) Encouraging diverse perspectives -> AI can introduce new viewpoints and ideas, challenging users to expand their thinking. This exposure to different perspectives can enhance creative processes, making individuals more innovative thinkers.
(5) DEMOCRATIZING creativity and making it more accessible to more people -> AI tools are accessible to a broader audience, enabling individuals and small businesses to bring their ideas to life without extensive resources. AI tools enable individuals without traditional artistic training to create visually appealing work. This democratizes creativity, allowing more people to express themselves artistically.
There are many more ways in which AI tools can BENEFIT creators - it's uses are only limited by one's imagination (and whatever regulations that are implemented).
In fact, human creativity has been HAMPERED by patents, copyright laws, etc. to benefit 'big corporations' and 'those with money/capital/resources'. AI closes this gap by allowing people to express themselves in ways NOT YET prohibited by repressive laws.
As an example, if I want to create a documentary or a musical score, using AI I can do these things without needing the vast resources that would generally be required to produce this. There are many more examples, such as assisting writers by providing tools for brainstorming ideas, organizing content, and enhancing the writing process through grammar checks and style suggestions. It can also help overcome writer's block and improve efficiency, allowing writers to focus more on creativity and storytelling. It allows MORE people and even LESS EXPERIENCED people to create - i.e. it lowers the 'barriers to entry' in the creative process.
I agree. AI can be a useful tool for many creative tasks.
For example, my sister does make some, judicious use of AI for creative aspects of her work. Also, she's using it for some personal creative project she hasn't finished yet, and claims to be happy with the assistance it provides.
Nah mate any time you see the word “democratising” you know you’re in the presence of bullshit.
AI doesn’t help with any of the above processes, beyond offering a different option. If you wanted to create a GOOD musical score or documentary, AI would be of limited help to you. It might be useful if you need to churn out some crap you don’t care about to a deadline, but artists shouldn’t be working in that way anyway.
I’ve never understood why people use zotero. Why not just do it yourself? It takes no longer than checking the output of zotero.
There are some legwork/brute force tasks it can do which couldn’t have been realistically done before, like stem splitting audio and image upscaling. But the things it’s genuinely useful for are few and far between.
Most companies who use it lose money doing so; most companies selling it also lose money. Investors are starting to realise they won’t get their money back; the bubble is popping probably in the next few weeks. Before long, nothing that needs a data farm to run will still be around, certainly not for free, and since nobody is willing to pay for it, I can’t see how it will still be around at any scale.
This is all outside of the fight about copyright, which can realistically only leave either all media industries or all LLM AI companies standing.
A year ago there were professors claiming it was better than PhD researchers. Now undergraduates won’t touch it no matter how much you extol the virtues. Looks pretty much bust to me.
Amos, learn what 'democratising' means. For example, education was democratized to allow more blacks access to education. Technology was democraticized to allow more people access to technology.
Read my comment above (and educate yourself) on what democratizing MEANS (and this is different from the political form of Govt.), otherwise you are just displaying your foolishness and 'lack of comprehension' abilities.
>>"AI doesn’t help with any of the above processes"
I guess you haven't used AI to create anything. Figures. But more than that, you lack imagination. And even more than that, you FEAR what you don't understand, as displayed by the BIAS (and lack of critical analysis) in your comment.
Sure, you can prompt AI "Write me a song about X" or "make me a documentary about Y" and you'll get some slop. And many people who do this won't recognize it as slop.
But AI can be a helpful tool. For example, my mother composed a song about 30 years ago and even had a woman sing it while another person played piano in the background. My brother in-law recently took a digitized version made from the only previously existing recording--a scratchy cassette--and had AI assist with various arrangements of the song.
AI could be helpful for many people, like me, who sometimes think up melodies for songs but don't have the musical skills to get any semblance of the song recorded. The results are not likely to be great, but if the idea is good, a skilled human can build on what the person with the original idea was able to pull together with AI's help and maybe make something good.
<< 5) DEMOCRATIZING creativity and making it more accessible to more people -> AI tools are accessible to a broader audience, enabling individuals and small businesses to bring their ideas to life without extensive resources. AI tools enable individuals without traditional artistic training to create visually appealing work. This democratizes creativity, allowing more people to express themselves artistically. >>
Translation: Painting by numbers = democracy
<< Milan Kundera described kitsch as an aesthetic, “in which shit is denied, and everyone acts as though it does not exist,” adding that it is “a folding screen set up to curtain off death.” >>
Democratizing = "Democratizing refers to the process of making a system, organization, or society more democratic, which often involves increasing participation, representation, and equality among its members. This can apply to various contexts, such as politics, data access, or technology, aiming to empower individuals and reduce barriers to participation."
Democratizing is not the same as 'democracy as a political form of Govt.'
In simpler words, democratizing = to give more access to people, to make it more available to a higher group of people other than just a minority or elites or the privileged or 'a select few people with higher resources', to level the playing field, to create more fairness, to even the odds. Other examples: democratizing education, democratizing housing, etc.
Funny thing how the empires that bang on about democracy the most are the ones most involved in suppressing it. Currently this meme is most visible in the US, the current global empire, and Britain and France, the two previous ones.
The democrats haven’t done a great job of democratising education, housing, healthcare, or their own party.
The DAW is often hailed as having democratised music production, but examined close up, it has done the opposite in many respects.
As I say, “democratisation” is generally a good sign you’re in the presence of bullshit.
Amos, I have been enjoying the to and fro... Chang's meaning of 'democratisation' is fine. But any linguist will tell you how language acquires different meanings with time - like a stone gathering moss - so your interpretation is not faulty. Trump has well and truly democratised English!
We rely on our real experiences to judge AI because techbros have already admitted that AI thrives on skewed data. I know that as soon as a bot calls me, I hang up whereas I would still entertain a human. I know that AI has increased my workload somewhat, because I need to correct errors of others using it. I know it will be disastrous economically, because humans spend money on themselves and their families, and machines do not. I know AIs fluid morality based on perceived consensus will be detrimental to those without a moral compass. KoolAId imbibers will be less capable of forming meaningful human relationships, ultimately extincting themselves. Check back on this comment in 15 years.
I suggest learning how LLM models ACTUALLY work (rather than relying on whatever the 'tech-bros' and people that HYPE up AI technologies say). Also, AI is a broad area that includes robotics, machine learning, generative AI, multi-modal LLMs, computer vision, and so much more.
Garbage in, Garbage out. This applies to computers, AIs, AND HUMANS. Your AI models are only as good as the data (and training) provided. Just as 'human output' is often only as good as 'the data possessed by the human and the training undergone by the human'.
Regulation is important - regardless of if it is 'social media', 'computer gaming', alcohol, drugs, guns, AI LLM models, pharmaceutical drugs, whatever. Hence, the AMOUNT CONSUMED is relevant. Too much of anything is not advisable - and this applies to AI just as it much as it applies to other things.
Morality is a different topic of discussion altogether, and it is often subjective based on cultures, different regions, different societies, different economic systems, and more. So let's leave that aside, as this is a never-ending discussion.
AI is here to stay with us - regardless of whether you or I like it or don't. It's not going anywhere, just as semiconductor chips are not going anywhere, etc.
Each person has a responsibility to consume technology wisely - be it social media, AI, nuclear technology, military weapons technology, whatever. Some will use it wisely, others won't. Each person has a certain amount of agency. No one is forcing you to use AI, just as no one is forcing you to consume drugs/alcohol/etc. There are ALWAYS RISKS and a risk/reward profile for EVERYTHING.
Hence the IMPORTANCE of 'educating people' on 'how to use AI technologies' and how 'not to'. Hence the PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE of REGULATING AI technologies (just as alcohol/drugs/guns/etc. are regulated).
"AI is here to stay with us - regardless of whether you or I like it or don't. It's not going anywhere, just as semiconductor chips are not going anywhere, etc.
All civilisations collapse eventually. Semiconductor chips will form part of the incomprehensible fossilised garbage heap we leave behind.
You think it's irrelevant because you think that collapse is far, far away. I don't. Among other reasons, if the bubble doesn't pop and put an end to most AI work, its need for massively ramping up the assault on ecosystems, means their utter collapse and the end of civilization. Proponents deal with this by handwaving the absurd claim that AI will "solve" climate change because it will be so smart.. Even if the claim of tremendous smartness were true, we aren't in the fix we're in with global heating--AND biodiversity loss and pollution by novel substances like plastic and PFAS, equal threats-- because we aren't smart enough to figure out solutions. We're in this fix because the only REAL solutions are unpalatable to the capitalists who (think they) own and (currently do) run our world. In large measure those in control are corporations, which like AI are unthinking, unfeeling machines, not people in any sense.
>>"You think it's irrelevant because you think that collapse is far, far away"
No, I think it's irrelevant because 'Neil Anderson's comment' adds NOTHING to the discussion at hand - i.e. it is a non sequitor. Maybe read his comment in context of this discussion.
Again, this is not a discussion about 'collapse' (which BTW humans are doing on their own without AI - with climate change, war, nuclear weapons, food insecurity, and so much more).
>>"if the bubble doesn't pop and put an end to most AI work"
Maybe you should take a time out and understand what AI is and isn't. Whether you (and I) like it or not, technology will progress (regardless of the system of production - i.e. capitalism, socialism, whatever) at hand. Neither you nor I can stop this, just as the agricultural revolution could not be stopped, neither could the many industrial revolutions, or the technological revolutions (computers, internet), or the AI revolution (and likely whatever is to follow in the future).
>>"Proponents deal with this by handwaving the absurd claim that AI will "solve" climate change because it will be so smart."
Why do you believe such absurd claims? AI will make the climate crisis WORSE - anyone with 2 brain cells should be able to understand that. THAT is one of the MOST SERIOUS dangers of AI (which many naysayers of AI technologies seem to miss most of the time). Hence, just as emmissions are regulated (or not), AI needs to be regulated (how well and how effective it is is the question/unknown).
I don’t know enough about AI to have an opinion but I don’t feel reassured by what I’m reading. Geoffrey Hinton who’s considered an expert in AI has issued warnings about what could go wrong and Stephen Hawking stated it had the potential to destroy mankind. Even if you disagree about the aesthetics, there’s danger in this technology.
YES! There's serious danger, and serious risks. No doubt about that. THAT is exactly WHY there MUST BE strong REGULATION on the AI industry and technologies (just as there is regulation with the usage of nuclear technologies or biomedical research - i.e. viruses and vaccines, etc.).
But one shouldn't throw out the BABY with the bath water. We (humanity) are already at the point of destruction of humanity and the planet (without AI) with nuclear weapons, climate change, war, bioweapons research, etc.
Of course, technologies such as AI would fare MUCH BETTER under systems such as SOCIALISM rather than Capitalism - i.e. technologies should be used for the good of the MAJORITY of the people rather than a minority of 'greedy profit-seekers'. Hence, all the MORE reason to CHANGE our political and economic systems rather than being DISTRACTED by 'fear responses' to AI technologies. People often fear what they do not understand. I see a lot of this with the 'doom and gloom' perspectives of Caitlin and many others all over the net. On the flip side, there are players that HYPE AI technology above and beyond all reality (for different reasons, including to attract financing for their companies).
Chang--how old are you? How long have you been paying attention to what goes on in the world? You think the answer is regulation? That made sense 100 years ago, when it became apparent that faceless corporations were taking over more and more of the economy and potentially threatening health and welfare. It even worked for awhile. Until corporations figured out how to capture all the regulatory agencies. At this point that capture is complete, and not only in the US. Right now another COP is meeting in Brazil, and some people are writing absurd screeds about how THIS time we need to get serious about addressing climate change--while others are flying into Belem because it's a handy place to make deal with oil company reps, there are 5000 of them there.
Will the AI companies capture the regulatory agencies (which don't yet exist)? They already have!
Mary Wildfire--how old are you? Or rather, how BIASED are you that you are willing to let your critical thinking skills perish (or degenerate) for the sake of your biases and beliefs?
>>"You think the answer is regulation? That made sense 100 years ago"
Are you living in the REAL WORLD? Or your own? There's regulation ALL AROUND (albeit not enough IMO).
Driving on the road is regulated (stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits), car manufacturing is regulated (safety considerations, seat-belt policies, etc.), alcohol is regulated (driving under the influence, etc.), guns are regulated (though not enough), medical professions and the health care industry is regulated, and on and on...almost EVERYTHING in society is regulated (though not adequately IMO).
The goal (under Capitalism) is to prevent regulation from interfering with 'the ability to make profits'. This applies to AI technologies just as much as it applies to banking, financial markets, drug manufacturing, and everything else.
The question really ISN'T about to regulate or not, it is about HOW MUCH to regulate and HOW WELL this regulation is ENFORCED.
You can either have AI without regulation (like we have now), or you can have AI WITH regulation. Those seem to be the two choices. I don't see a third choice wherein AI does not exist any longer in our world. Do you?
I'd say YOU have a bias here. I've been tuning in to Brian Merchant's Blood in the Machine blog. He was a tech writer for the LA Times, now does this gig focused on AI. Then there's Karen Hao--these are people who know the industry well and their take is hair-raising. Not so much the AI Will Eat Humanity stuff, which seems to be possibly the dark side of the hype machine desperately trying to get yet more billions out of the investor class. But AI is destroying jobs, and enshittifying jobs, and preying on the emotionally weak; and its need for a massive buildout out will cause a massive ramping up of power generation mostly from fossil fuels, hence a ramping up of climate change, other pollution, water consumption, power and water bills for those living near one, and further damage to democracy as they are rammed in over the objections of residents. Then there's the damage to the economy when the bubble breaks--apparently some of the top guys are already talking to the US government about a bailout. Then there's the one monster AI plant they likely WILL build regardless of profitability, the Panopticon Palantir already had the contract for, where they can consolidate the enormous amount of data they have on every one of us, from our social media posts, phone tracking, to all the data the Muskrats scraped while they rampaged through the IRS, Social Security and the other agencies in DC. One thing AI will be good at is combing through that enormity of data to identify the potential leaders when the uprising finally comes--when the dystopian plans of these maniacs become evident. If you think this is silly conspiracy mongering, you haven't read the things Musk, Altman, Thiel, Curtis Yarvin have said.
I'd say you are PROJECTING and experiencing DENIALISM.
Do you see the glass half-full? Then you are biased.
Do you see the galss half-empty? Then you are biased.
Do you see BOTH the glass half-full AND half-empty? If so, you are seeing the complete picture (all data regarding the glass), and are NOT biased.
All the people you mention above, Karen Hao, et. al. are NOT biased (because they see both the glass half-full AND the glass half-empty). But it seems you only pay attention to them when they are talking about the glass being half-empty.
That is YOUR bias, not mine. I see the advantages AND disadvantages of AI technologies (as you should realize by now). Just because I ALSO see the advantages does not make me a 'pro-AI' person (but those that are anti-AI assume that anyone that can see the advantages of AI must be pro-AI because otherwise they would not be talking about the advantages and they would ONLY talk about the disadvantages).
That is a logical fallacy (and quite a simple one). I'm not disagreeing with you on ANY of the disadvantages/harms/dangers of AI technologies. I understand those (probably better than most here). In fact, notice how Caitlin has NEVER mentions some of the LARGEST dangers/risks of AI technologies - the impact on CLIMATE CHANGE, the ecology, the environment. She keeps harping about 'creative issues', where where is the mention of the LARGEST RISKS of AI? Where is the talk about the destruction of lands for mining the material needed for AI chips? The CO2 emissions produced by the data farms? The depletion of natural resources such as the WATER that is needed to cool these data farms? The sucking of ALL forms of energy (including nuclear and fossil fuels) to keep the data farms running? Not a word. But sure, harp on about 'creative issues'. AI creating more competition in the 'creative world' is not what I see as the LARGEST CONCERN of AI technologies.
You talk about bubbles. Did the 'dot-com' bubble get rid of the internet? Did the 'housing and global finance' bubble get rid of housing issues and global financial issues? So WHY do you think an AI bubble will get rid of AI?
AI is here to STAY, whether you or I or Caitlin or anyone else in the world likes it or not. You can DENY it all you want, and you can 'stick your head in the sand' and hope that it somehow goes away. Or you can focus on how to REGULATE the technology (and industry) so that it does not end the planet (and humanity with it).
FEAR, DENIALISM, etc. are not strategies that will help us fight the Capitalist system (and the ways in which the system will ABUSE AI technologies). Being REALISTIC about the REAL WORLD will. Regulating technologies such as AI will. Educating people on AI technologies will. Bringing more awareness about the issues will. Learning (and encouraging others) on how to use AI technologies for the many (not the few) will.
Yes, AI can do some good things. But these things are TRIVIAL in comparison with the harms and potential harms. Much of your argument is one the industry uses, and which has been used before to defend capitalism --There Is No Alternative. AI isn't going anywhere, fossil fuels aren't going anywhere, we must and will have economic growth forever. You worry about climate change and probably other environmental harms, but I wonder if you understand the scale of the threats. We've crossed seven of nine planetary boundaries; scientists say the first loss of climate change, coral reefs, is likely now irreversible; microplastic and PFAS are found essentially everywhere anyone has looked, in the case of plastics from the atmosphere to the Marianas Trench, from the Arctic to every human organ examined, and there are myriad health effects; there are not enough minerals to replace fossil fuels with renewables, and trying to will result in a huge increase in mining which is inherently destructive and unjust; fossil fuels, at least the most critical which is oil, are likely peaking now; we are losing insects at the rate of 1 to 2% per year and are now down to half what was there 70 years ago; the percentage by weight of land mammals is 30% human, 65% our livestock and 4% all other species combined. My point is this: what is unsustainable can't be sustained, by definition, and what can't be sustained won't be sustained, it will STOP. The details of when and how can't be predicted but it's obvious this can't go on much longer. And a new industry that requires MASSIVE use of declining resources makes no damn sense. And I continue to think that even the so-called positive uses of it, and of cryptocurrency, the other reason for data centers, are more harm than real benefit.
Sorry, yours is a failed argument. All you have provided are your BIASED OPINIONS without adequate evidence, and without looking at the positive aspects/uses of the technology (instead of just focusing on the negative aspects/uses).
Also, maybe you should attempt to understand HOW AI technology works, and how it works in different contexts and economic systems. Just as nuclear technology can be used for 'energy purposes' and weapons, same too with ANY technology.
BTW, your comment doesn't make much sense (eg. "Note that in the human mind, memory and rationality are integrated; in AI they are in separate realms."). Huh? Which neuroscientist did you get THAT from? Making shit up is what LLMs often do, but it seems that you like to do it too (as do other humans - have you heard of bullshitting by politicians, for instance?)
>>"AI is thought-control by suggestion and substitution, eventually proving its superiority to the average human mind."
Thought-control was present WAY before AI technologies. Have you read "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays? Do you know what the 'advertising, marketing, sales, PR' industries are all about? They are about thought and psychology manipulation. Have you wondered about how 'political elections' use ALL the same strategies that you seem to credit to AI alone?
The human mind was HACKABLE 'before' AI, and it remains hackable after AI. You don't need AI for 'thought-control, suggestion, substitution' - you already have humans doing that.
It's an article about Israel and Palestine, not about AI technologies. And like I said in my earlier comment, AI or not, people will STILL be manipulated by those seeking to take advantage of them (through narratives, revisionist history, access to factual information, etc.).
I suggest expanding your horizons to take in MORE data rather than maintaining a myopic perspective on biased opinions.
Besides, if you don't like AI, don't use it. No one is forcing you to use AI, just as no one is forcing you to consume drugs/alcohol or use guns to harm others.
But if others find BENEFICIAL USES of AI (and it helps them out in life), then I don't see what problem YOU have with it. Why should YOUR 'fear' prevent others from benefitting from the technology?
Also, you should look into 'anecdotal fallacy', 'cherry-picking fallacy' and 'sampling bias' (in regards to your comment).
"The western world has created a machine whose behavior goes against every healthy human impulse. The US-led world order has given birth to an out of control monster with an insatiable appetite for human flesh."
I never feel happy about anything the US does. I think the food the people in power are eating has something nasty in it that causes people to lose their humanity. AI built by people like Musk is a terrifying idea. I wish I could avoid it altogether but I don't think anyone will be able to totally avoid it no matter how hard they try.
Muslims would never have invented bombs because it is haram to burn human beings. America invented the term "collateral damage" to justify mass murdering human beings from the sky in Vietnam.
So rude. I did consider that you said invented, but you also said it was haram to burn humans. I don't think there is any doubt about who the pilots were. I do see suggestions of Israel being involved and am interested in any actual evidence for it.
'That’s just how it works in a society which only elevates that which can generate profits. The food is designed to induce craving rather than facilitate health. The entertainment is designed to distract and sedate rather than to edify. The social media is designed to be addictive rather than to help people connect with each other. It’s all geared to appeal to our baser instincts rather than to improve and inform us.' Great work! If you want to help end the US Infinity War Tour, try to persuade other nations not to sign up with their salami tactics annexations, or as they call them 'alliances' (same goes for any other MICs): https://worldbeyondwar.org/declareneutrality/
And can we collectively in the west raise a huge stink about giving yet more of our money to NATO? It's the last place it should go. NATO should be deconstructed. We should no longer feed this beast.
Our money should go to building our societies, housing and feeding us and providing reparations to the countries we've obliterated.
Is that a roundabout way of saying the USA should get lost? I'd imagine if it and the rest of the western world would find other ways of occupying their time -- say, for example, investing in the well-being of the people, the systems that support them, and the environment -- the world would be so much more wonderful than it is now.
The note about the USA and its activities is of serious concern. Would it not be reasonable for Australia to make it a criminal offence under the Criminal Code to be complicit with genocide? Companies and residents of Australia would be obligated to consider their activities in a deeper context. This would confirm Australia's position as being a peace seeker rather than enabling/fostering/supporting new outbreaks of deadly serious wars. It would serve as a statement recognising the colonial wars in Australia. It would draw a line between Australia and the war leader identified in this discussion. It would place Australia as not discriminating between people of different races and religions.
Truthout just published a chilling article, 'Trump's New National Security Strategy Suggests Further Domestic Crackdown' by Ken Klippenstein, that lays out the administration's authoritarian plans for the 'homeland'; exceeding draconian post-9/11 policies. Locked and loaded Karen AG Pam Bondi breathlessly said on X this week that 'Antifa is an existential threat to our nation', illustrating the nation's cri de coeur with recent scuffles that broke out at a TPUSA event. Militarized border zones that the Pentagon calls 'National Defense Areas', and Joint Task Forces of military and civilian authorities are coordinating their efforts to protect Americans from hordes of bad hombre's, narcotics traffickers { when they don't fund or benefit intelligence operations }, advanced air and missile threats { from countries that would prefer the empire to leave them alone }, cyber intrusions, and infrastructure risks { like collapsing bridges, and crumbling roads ? }. Trump's National Security Strategy is an unprecedented coordination of military, intelligence, and civilian authorities to slam a despotic boot heel on the neck of the United States and Western Hemisphere. From Los Angeles to Venezuela, borders need securing - from the United States' fascist invasion.
"It’s wild how Musk just openly showed the entire world in real time how powerful people can build political biases into AI services for their own benefit."
In primitive societies, people gathered and hunted to survive. With the agricultural revolution, people began to cultivate to emulate nature. With slavery, social groups were distinguished between those who thought and fought and those who worked. With serfdom, serfs served the social lords. With capitalism, people consume to produce and produce to accumulate wealth through the profit derived from the exploitation of others' labor, rather than producing to satisfy everyone's vital needs. One way to make high profits is to manufacture weapons. Peace cannot be established without reversing this process. To reverse this process, we need the Republic of the Earth and its currency, Dhana. It's not hard to understand! www.asmad.org. www.dhana.org
"The US is the most aggressive nation on Earth. They leave the British empire in the dust. Since 9/11 the US had slaughtered 4.5 MILLION people. Prior to 9/11, the US had slaughtered millions more, all in the name of profits."
https://griobhtha1.substack.com/p/the-polyglot-of-evil
Power, Profits, and Prophets, all contributed to this monster.
Genocidal spawn from the same messed up gene pool.
got nothin to do with genes, except that sociopathy has a genetic component, but there are sociopaths born everywhere.
Both the same to me it's just that the weapons have changed.
and the names and the imperial core and the time period, but agreed
Agresstive MONEY grabbers
Those that know and have been to Venezuela have said, the US needs to stay the hell away from Venezuela. It is considered Vietnam on steroids. Hills, mountains, jungles, population armed to the teeth and oh by the way, they hate Mericans. It will turn quickly into gorilla warfare.
They won't invade. They'll missile the place.
Keep in mind there are 700,000 Venezuelans already in the US, and their families will be on the receiving end of those missiles. Our infrastructure is wide open, when we destroy the Caracas potable water plant (because you know that will be one of the first targets) they'd better post guards on the water purification plants for every major US city.
That makes perfect sense which tells me you do not work for the government as it’s impossible for any of them to think past their nose.
Arms companies are the problem. Button pushing cowards mass murdering human beings in their own lands.
Looks like Trump snorted up some warlord aspirations.
Any 'leader' in history. King, president, Tsar, pope, you name it, they all became players in war schemes. Those who make most war live forever in the rewritten history of the most agressive winner.
@realRodster, keeping our hearts open that Venezuela can do a Vietnam.
"Reuters reports that in 2024 the Biden administration had intelligence showing that the IDF was using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza. But Biden continued shipping genocide weapons to the Israelis the entire time he was in office.
You’ll still periodically see online liberals trying to shame leftists for not voting for Kamala, but the more information comes out about what the Biden administration was up to during that time the more genocidal they look. Biden-Harris are looking worse with time, not better."
Had Harris the basic duplicity to have temporarily pretended to give a shit about Palestine, she might well have won.
I was very impressed with KH's political boneheadedness. She spat in RFK Jr's face when they could have kept him on board for next to nothing. That might have been the election right there.
Similar to Ronny Reagan, Biden has been demented for many years, but playing to a script written by others. What is Harris’ excuse?
Very well said Feral. If there was even the attempt to pretend to care about Palestine, it could've been a factor in delivering her the presidency. Yet, her disdain and indifference to their plight was so strong, she didn't even bother making that minimal effort, and lost the race and faded into the background
Well, AOC claimed that Kamala had a secret plan to end the slaughter in Gaza so that should have been good enough to merit a vote.
Please tell me that was sarcasm.
Yes, it most certainly was!
did AOC really say that? Shades of Richard Nixon!
It is not an exact quote but close enough as I recall.
She said it at the Dem Convention in 2024 in support of Lama Kalama.
The former Latinx bar tender and entrepreneur wants to continue her rise within the Dem Party.
Nancy Pelosi for the Twenty First Century.
And Richard Nixon, the fallen Quaker and commie hunter.
All effing politicians either lies or obey their donors.
Venezuela will be FAR worse than Vietnam. And on top of that, Russia and China are standing by to assist, though China likely has more invested. And the rest of Latin America will come to their defense. The US has gone full on insane. They do not know what they are about to unleash.
Caitlin, it's amazing that you continue to 'double down' on being quite wrong about AI (not in the sense that it doesn't have negative effects, but in the sense that it has many positive effects and uses too). Your view seems to be quite BIASED (instead of balanced and comprehensive).
More and more people are going to continue to use AI and Generative AI (whether you want them to or not). And 'shaming people' that use AI (just because you don't understand AI) doesn't look good.
For example, CJ>>"Only those who are emotionally stunted and incapable of meaningful human connection will find them to be stimulating conversationalists and companions." Not true. Not in the least. Maybe you might want to do some research on the MANY ways people are ALREADY using AI to seek help where no other options are found, how it provides MORE access to people to help themselves that have less resources to spend on 'expensive alternatives', and more.
CJ>>"Like so much else capitalism produces, it’s a product that’s designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator."
Again, not true. Maybe you might want to do some research on HOW AI is used in aiding researchers write research papers (by doing the drudge work), how it helps software developers and testers in assisting with boiler-plate and mundane and repetitive tasks, how it helps children that don't have access to teachers/educational resources fill-in-the-gaps, how it helps teachers in grading student work, thus saving them more time for 'teaching', and I could go on....
CJ>>"Generative AI stuff only looks impressive to mediocre people...We can only appreciate something up to the level of our own adeptness."
Again, very wrong. I can appreciate Beethoven and Chopin's compositions WITHOUT 'my adeptness' being up to level. The same applies to appreciation of almost everything. Humans are CAPABLE of appreciating things of much HIGHER LEVELS than their own level.
I have to wonder (since your bias against AI comes across as more emotional and irrational rather than a thoughtful examination and deliberation of the technology), on what basis are you forming your opinions? What is your 'sample size' for arriving at the assumptions/opinions you do? Is your data being generated by your OWN confirmation bias on the subject? Are you looking at data (and examples) that go against your 'bias/opinion' when attempting to understand AI's impact on society? Are you, for some reason, locked into black-and-white thinking on this technology? Is doom and gloom the only thing you see?
Caitlin is an artist, poet, and essayist who has fulfilling personal relationships. Thus, AI has little to offer her.
For others, it is a useful tool. For example, my sister is a web designer, and AI has been a great help on the back end, with programming and debugging. She's a savvy user and an old veteran in her field, so she knows to control use of it on the front end, with writing copy and generating images, where many can detect over reliance on AI and a lack of human touch. I have found AI very helpful in understanding the daunting math used in graduate level economic theory.
There are many concerns about AI, including those raised by Caitlin, but AI is not all good or bad.
Actually, AI is a great tool for CREATORS too! How so?
(1) Freeing up time and resources -> AI automates repetitive tasks, allowing individuals to focus on higher-level creative thinking. This shift enables more time for innovation and strategic decision-making, fostering an environment where creativity can flourish.
(2) Idea generation -> AI tools can quickly generate a wide range of ideas and solutions. By analyzing vast datasets, AI identifies patterns and suggests unconventional approaches, which can inspire human users to think outside the box.
(3) Collaboration -> Used correctly, AI can act as a partner in the creative process, providing fresh perspectives and enhancing human creativity rather than replacing it.
(4) Encouraging diverse perspectives -> AI can introduce new viewpoints and ideas, challenging users to expand their thinking. This exposure to different perspectives can enhance creative processes, making individuals more innovative thinkers.
(5) DEMOCRATIZING creativity and making it more accessible to more people -> AI tools are accessible to a broader audience, enabling individuals and small businesses to bring their ideas to life without extensive resources. AI tools enable individuals without traditional artistic training to create visually appealing work. This democratizes creativity, allowing more people to express themselves artistically.
There are many more ways in which AI tools can BENEFIT creators - it's uses are only limited by one's imagination (and whatever regulations that are implemented).
In fact, human creativity has been HAMPERED by patents, copyright laws, etc. to benefit 'big corporations' and 'those with money/capital/resources'. AI closes this gap by allowing people to express themselves in ways NOT YET prohibited by repressive laws.
As an example, if I want to create a documentary or a musical score, using AI I can do these things without needing the vast resources that would generally be required to produce this. There are many more examples, such as assisting writers by providing tools for brainstorming ideas, organizing content, and enhancing the writing process through grammar checks and style suggestions. It can also help overcome writer's block and improve efficiency, allowing writers to focus more on creativity and storytelling. It allows MORE people and even LESS EXPERIENCED people to create - i.e. it lowers the 'barriers to entry' in the creative process.
I agree. AI can be a useful tool for many creative tasks.
For example, my sister does make some, judicious use of AI for creative aspects of her work. Also, she's using it for some personal creative project she hasn't finished yet, and claims to be happy with the assistance it provides.
Nah mate any time you see the word “democratising” you know you’re in the presence of bullshit.
AI doesn’t help with any of the above processes, beyond offering a different option. If you wanted to create a GOOD musical score or documentary, AI would be of limited help to you. It might be useful if you need to churn out some crap you don’t care about to a deadline, but artists shouldn’t be working in that way anyway.
I’ve never understood why people use zotero. Why not just do it yourself? It takes no longer than checking the output of zotero.
There are some legwork/brute force tasks it can do which couldn’t have been realistically done before, like stem splitting audio and image upscaling. But the things it’s genuinely useful for are few and far between.
Most companies who use it lose money doing so; most companies selling it also lose money. Investors are starting to realise they won’t get their money back; the bubble is popping probably in the next few weeks. Before long, nothing that needs a data farm to run will still be around, certainly not for free, and since nobody is willing to pay for it, I can’t see how it will still be around at any scale.
This is all outside of the fight about copyright, which can realistically only leave either all media industries or all LLM AI companies standing.
A year ago there were professors claiming it was better than PhD researchers. Now undergraduates won’t touch it no matter how much you extol the virtues. Looks pretty much bust to me.
Amos, learn what 'democratising' means. For example, education was democratized to allow more blacks access to education. Technology was democraticized to allow more people access to technology.
Read my comment above (and educate yourself) on what democratizing MEANS (and this is different from the political form of Govt.), otherwise you are just displaying your foolishness and 'lack of comprehension' abilities.
>>"AI doesn’t help with any of the above processes"
I guess you haven't used AI to create anything. Figures. But more than that, you lack imagination. And even more than that, you FEAR what you don't understand, as displayed by the BIAS (and lack of critical analysis) in your comment.
Sure, you can prompt AI "Write me a song about X" or "make me a documentary about Y" and you'll get some slop. And many people who do this won't recognize it as slop.
But AI can be a helpful tool. For example, my mother composed a song about 30 years ago and even had a woman sing it while another person played piano in the background. My brother in-law recently took a digitized version made from the only previously existing recording--a scratchy cassette--and had AI assist with various arrangements of the song.
AI could be helpful for many people, like me, who sometimes think up melodies for songs but don't have the musical skills to get any semblance of the song recorded. The results are not likely to be great, but if the idea is good, a skilled human can build on what the person with the original idea was able to pull together with AI's help and maybe make something good.
<< 5) DEMOCRATIZING creativity and making it more accessible to more people -> AI tools are accessible to a broader audience, enabling individuals and small businesses to bring their ideas to life without extensive resources. AI tools enable individuals without traditional artistic training to create visually appealing work. This democratizes creativity, allowing more people to express themselves artistically. >>
Translation: Painting by numbers = democracy
<< Milan Kundera described kitsch as an aesthetic, “in which shit is denied, and everyone acts as though it does not exist,” adding that it is “a folding screen set up to curtain off death.” >>
https://open.substack.com/pub/chrishedges/p/america-is-a-banana-republic-read?r=86bcr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Here's something new for you to learn ->
Democratizing = "Democratizing refers to the process of making a system, organization, or society more democratic, which often involves increasing participation, representation, and equality among its members. This can apply to various contexts, such as politics, data access, or technology, aiming to empower individuals and reduce barriers to participation."
Democratizing is not the same as 'democracy as a political form of Govt.'
In simpler words, democratizing = to give more access to people, to make it more available to a higher group of people other than just a minority or elites or the privileged or 'a select few people with higher resources', to level the playing field, to create more fairness, to even the odds. Other examples: democratizing education, democratizing housing, etc.
Funny thing how the empires that bang on about democracy the most are the ones most involved in suppressing it. Currently this meme is most visible in the US, the current global empire, and Britain and France, the two previous ones.
The democrats haven’t done a great job of democratising education, housing, healthcare, or their own party.
The DAW is often hailed as having democratised music production, but examined close up, it has done the opposite in many respects.
As I say, “democratisation” is generally a good sign you’re in the presence of bullshit.
Amos, I have been enjoying the to and fro... Chang's meaning of 'democratisation' is fine. But any linguist will tell you how language acquires different meanings with time - like a stone gathering moss - so your interpretation is not faulty. Trump has well and truly democratised English!
Read my comment here -> https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-empire-only-de-escalates-in-one/comment/177575906
Hard to say it better than that, man.
Everyone I see banging on about AI is either an oligarch or wanna be oligarch looking to take advantage of rubes.
Not sure if it's better or worse than the crypto they were pushing last week. And legal weed before that.
We rely on our real experiences to judge AI because techbros have already admitted that AI thrives on skewed data. I know that as soon as a bot calls me, I hang up whereas I would still entertain a human. I know that AI has increased my workload somewhat, because I need to correct errors of others using it. I know it will be disastrous economically, because humans spend money on themselves and their families, and machines do not. I know AIs fluid morality based on perceived consensus will be detrimental to those without a moral compass. KoolAId imbibers will be less capable of forming meaningful human relationships, ultimately extincting themselves. Check back on this comment in 15 years.
I suggest learning how LLM models ACTUALLY work (rather than relying on whatever the 'tech-bros' and people that HYPE up AI technologies say). Also, AI is a broad area that includes robotics, machine learning, generative AI, multi-modal LLMs, computer vision, and so much more.
Garbage in, Garbage out. This applies to computers, AIs, AND HUMANS. Your AI models are only as good as the data (and training) provided. Just as 'human output' is often only as good as 'the data possessed by the human and the training undergone by the human'.
Regulation is important - regardless of if it is 'social media', 'computer gaming', alcohol, drugs, guns, AI LLM models, pharmaceutical drugs, whatever. Hence, the AMOUNT CONSUMED is relevant. Too much of anything is not advisable - and this applies to AI just as it much as it applies to other things.
Morality is a different topic of discussion altogether, and it is often subjective based on cultures, different regions, different societies, different economic systems, and more. So let's leave that aside, as this is a never-ending discussion.
AI is here to stay with us - regardless of whether you or I like it or don't. It's not going anywhere, just as semiconductor chips are not going anywhere, etc.
Each person has a responsibility to consume technology wisely - be it social media, AI, nuclear technology, military weapons technology, whatever. Some will use it wisely, others won't. Each person has a certain amount of agency. No one is forcing you to use AI, just as no one is forcing you to consume drugs/alcohol/etc. There are ALWAYS RISKS and a risk/reward profile for EVERYTHING.
Hence the IMPORTANCE of 'educating people' on 'how to use AI technologies' and how 'not to'. Hence the PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE of REGULATING AI technologies (just as alcohol/drugs/guns/etc. are regulated).
"AI is here to stay with us - regardless of whether you or I like it or don't. It's not going anywhere, just as semiconductor chips are not going anywhere, etc.
All civilisations collapse eventually. Semiconductor chips will form part of the incomprehensible fossilised garbage heap we leave behind.
>>"All civilisations collapse eventually."
Duh! Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Just as computers and cell phones are here to stay, so also is AI.
You think it's irrelevant because you think that collapse is far, far away. I don't. Among other reasons, if the bubble doesn't pop and put an end to most AI work, its need for massively ramping up the assault on ecosystems, means their utter collapse and the end of civilization. Proponents deal with this by handwaving the absurd claim that AI will "solve" climate change because it will be so smart.. Even if the claim of tremendous smartness were true, we aren't in the fix we're in with global heating--AND biodiversity loss and pollution by novel substances like plastic and PFAS, equal threats-- because we aren't smart enough to figure out solutions. We're in this fix because the only REAL solutions are unpalatable to the capitalists who (think they) own and (currently do) run our world. In large measure those in control are corporations, which like AI are unthinking, unfeeling machines, not people in any sense.
>>"You think it's irrelevant because you think that collapse is far, far away"
No, I think it's irrelevant because 'Neil Anderson's comment' adds NOTHING to the discussion at hand - i.e. it is a non sequitor. Maybe read his comment in context of this discussion.
Again, this is not a discussion about 'collapse' (which BTW humans are doing on their own without AI - with climate change, war, nuclear weapons, food insecurity, and so much more).
>>"if the bubble doesn't pop and put an end to most AI work"
Maybe you should take a time out and understand what AI is and isn't. Whether you (and I) like it or not, technology will progress (regardless of the system of production - i.e. capitalism, socialism, whatever) at hand. Neither you nor I can stop this, just as the agricultural revolution could not be stopped, neither could the many industrial revolutions, or the technological revolutions (computers, internet), or the AI revolution (and likely whatever is to follow in the future).
>>"Proponents deal with this by handwaving the absurd claim that AI will "solve" climate change because it will be so smart."
Why do you believe such absurd claims? AI will make the climate crisis WORSE - anyone with 2 brain cells should be able to understand that. THAT is one of the MOST SERIOUS dangers of AI (which many naysayers of AI technologies seem to miss most of the time). Hence, just as emmissions are regulated (or not), AI needs to be regulated (how well and how effective it is is the question/unknown).
Sorry to see how you've guzzled the AI Kool aid. But you definitely have.
In fact, it's the OPPOSITE of guzzling anything. Again, nuances and comprehensive analysis, not 'black-and-white' thinking.
I don’t know enough about AI to have an opinion but I don’t feel reassured by what I’m reading. Geoffrey Hinton who’s considered an expert in AI has issued warnings about what could go wrong and Stephen Hawking stated it had the potential to destroy mankind. Even if you disagree about the aesthetics, there’s danger in this technology.
>>"there’s danger in this technology."
YES! There's serious danger, and serious risks. No doubt about that. THAT is exactly WHY there MUST BE strong REGULATION on the AI industry and technologies (just as there is regulation with the usage of nuclear technologies or biomedical research - i.e. viruses and vaccines, etc.).
But one shouldn't throw out the BABY with the bath water. We (humanity) are already at the point of destruction of humanity and the planet (without AI) with nuclear weapons, climate change, war, bioweapons research, etc.
Of course, technologies such as AI would fare MUCH BETTER under systems such as SOCIALISM rather than Capitalism - i.e. technologies should be used for the good of the MAJORITY of the people rather than a minority of 'greedy profit-seekers'. Hence, all the MORE reason to CHANGE our political and economic systems rather than being DISTRACTED by 'fear responses' to AI technologies. People often fear what they do not understand. I see a lot of this with the 'doom and gloom' perspectives of Caitlin and many others all over the net. On the flip side, there are players that HYPE AI technology above and beyond all reality (for different reasons, including to attract financing for their companies).
Chang--how old are you? How long have you been paying attention to what goes on in the world? You think the answer is regulation? That made sense 100 years ago, when it became apparent that faceless corporations were taking over more and more of the economy and potentially threatening health and welfare. It even worked for awhile. Until corporations figured out how to capture all the regulatory agencies. At this point that capture is complete, and not only in the US. Right now another COP is meeting in Brazil, and some people are writing absurd screeds about how THIS time we need to get serious about addressing climate change--while others are flying into Belem because it's a handy place to make deal with oil company reps, there are 5000 of them there.
Will the AI companies capture the regulatory agencies (which don't yet exist)? They already have!
Mary Wildfire--how old are you? Or rather, how BIASED are you that you are willing to let your critical thinking skills perish (or degenerate) for the sake of your biases and beliefs?
>>"You think the answer is regulation? That made sense 100 years ago"
Are you living in the REAL WORLD? Or your own? There's regulation ALL AROUND (albeit not enough IMO).
Driving on the road is regulated (stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits), car manufacturing is regulated (safety considerations, seat-belt policies, etc.), alcohol is regulated (driving under the influence, etc.), guns are regulated (though not enough), medical professions and the health care industry is regulated, and on and on...almost EVERYTHING in society is regulated (though not adequately IMO).
The goal (under Capitalism) is to prevent regulation from interfering with 'the ability to make profits'. This applies to AI technologies just as much as it applies to banking, financial markets, drug manufacturing, and everything else.
The question really ISN'T about to regulate or not, it is about HOW MUCH to regulate and HOW WELL this regulation is ENFORCED.
You can either have AI without regulation (like we have now), or you can have AI WITH regulation. Those seem to be the two choices. I don't see a third choice wherein AI does not exist any longer in our world. Do you?
Spot on. You can bet that AI is captured and won't be for our benefit.
I'd say YOU have a bias here. I've been tuning in to Brian Merchant's Blood in the Machine blog. He was a tech writer for the LA Times, now does this gig focused on AI. Then there's Karen Hao--these are people who know the industry well and their take is hair-raising. Not so much the AI Will Eat Humanity stuff, which seems to be possibly the dark side of the hype machine desperately trying to get yet more billions out of the investor class. But AI is destroying jobs, and enshittifying jobs, and preying on the emotionally weak; and its need for a massive buildout out will cause a massive ramping up of power generation mostly from fossil fuels, hence a ramping up of climate change, other pollution, water consumption, power and water bills for those living near one, and further damage to democracy as they are rammed in over the objections of residents. Then there's the damage to the economy when the bubble breaks--apparently some of the top guys are already talking to the US government about a bailout. Then there's the one monster AI plant they likely WILL build regardless of profitability, the Panopticon Palantir already had the contract for, where they can consolidate the enormous amount of data they have on every one of us, from our social media posts, phone tracking, to all the data the Muskrats scraped while they rampaged through the IRS, Social Security and the other agencies in DC. One thing AI will be good at is combing through that enormity of data to identify the potential leaders when the uprising finally comes--when the dystopian plans of these maniacs become evident. If you think this is silly conspiracy mongering, you haven't read the things Musk, Altman, Thiel, Curtis Yarvin have said.
>>"I'd say YOU have a bias here."
I'd say you are PROJECTING and experiencing DENIALISM.
Do you see the glass half-full? Then you are biased.
Do you see the galss half-empty? Then you are biased.
Do you see BOTH the glass half-full AND half-empty? If so, you are seeing the complete picture (all data regarding the glass), and are NOT biased.
All the people you mention above, Karen Hao, et. al. are NOT biased (because they see both the glass half-full AND the glass half-empty). But it seems you only pay attention to them when they are talking about the glass being half-empty.
That is YOUR bias, not mine. I see the advantages AND disadvantages of AI technologies (as you should realize by now). Just because I ALSO see the advantages does not make me a 'pro-AI' person (but those that are anti-AI assume that anyone that can see the advantages of AI must be pro-AI because otherwise they would not be talking about the advantages and they would ONLY talk about the disadvantages).
That is a logical fallacy (and quite a simple one). I'm not disagreeing with you on ANY of the disadvantages/harms/dangers of AI technologies. I understand those (probably better than most here). In fact, notice how Caitlin has NEVER mentions some of the LARGEST dangers/risks of AI technologies - the impact on CLIMATE CHANGE, the ecology, the environment. She keeps harping about 'creative issues', where where is the mention of the LARGEST RISKS of AI? Where is the talk about the destruction of lands for mining the material needed for AI chips? The CO2 emissions produced by the data farms? The depletion of natural resources such as the WATER that is needed to cool these data farms? The sucking of ALL forms of energy (including nuclear and fossil fuels) to keep the data farms running? Not a word. But sure, harp on about 'creative issues'. AI creating more competition in the 'creative world' is not what I see as the LARGEST CONCERN of AI technologies.
You talk about bubbles. Did the 'dot-com' bubble get rid of the internet? Did the 'housing and global finance' bubble get rid of housing issues and global financial issues? So WHY do you think an AI bubble will get rid of AI?
AI is here to STAY, whether you or I or Caitlin or anyone else in the world likes it or not. You can DENY it all you want, and you can 'stick your head in the sand' and hope that it somehow goes away. Or you can focus on how to REGULATE the technology (and industry) so that it does not end the planet (and humanity with it).
FEAR, DENIALISM, etc. are not strategies that will help us fight the Capitalist system (and the ways in which the system will ABUSE AI technologies). Being REALISTIC about the REAL WORLD will. Regulating technologies such as AI will. Educating people on AI technologies will. Bringing more awareness about the issues will. Learning (and encouraging others) on how to use AI technologies for the many (not the few) will.
Yes, AI can do some good things. But these things are TRIVIAL in comparison with the harms and potential harms. Much of your argument is one the industry uses, and which has been used before to defend capitalism --There Is No Alternative. AI isn't going anywhere, fossil fuels aren't going anywhere, we must and will have economic growth forever. You worry about climate change and probably other environmental harms, but I wonder if you understand the scale of the threats. We've crossed seven of nine planetary boundaries; scientists say the first loss of climate change, coral reefs, is likely now irreversible; microplastic and PFAS are found essentially everywhere anyone has looked, in the case of plastics from the atmosphere to the Marianas Trench, from the Arctic to every human organ examined, and there are myriad health effects; there are not enough minerals to replace fossil fuels with renewables, and trying to will result in a huge increase in mining which is inherently destructive and unjust; fossil fuels, at least the most critical which is oil, are likely peaking now; we are losing insects at the rate of 1 to 2% per year and are now down to half what was there 70 years ago; the percentage by weight of land mammals is 30% human, 65% our livestock and 4% all other species combined. My point is this: what is unsustainable can't be sustained, by definition, and what can't be sustained won't be sustained, it will STOP. The details of when and how can't be predicted but it's obvious this can't go on much longer. And a new industry that requires MASSIVE use of declining resources makes no damn sense. And I continue to think that even the so-called positive uses of it, and of cryptocurrency, the other reason for data centers, are more harm than real benefit.
No, you're way off base. See my comment above.
Sorry, yours is a failed argument. All you have provided are your BIASED OPINIONS without adequate evidence, and without looking at the positive aspects/uses of the technology (instead of just focusing on the negative aspects/uses).
Also, maybe you should attempt to understand HOW AI technology works, and how it works in different contexts and economic systems. Just as nuclear technology can be used for 'energy purposes' and weapons, same too with ANY technology.
BTW, your comment doesn't make much sense (eg. "Note that in the human mind, memory and rationality are integrated; in AI they are in separate realms."). Huh? Which neuroscientist did you get THAT from? Making shit up is what LLMs often do, but it seems that you like to do it too (as do other humans - have you heard of bullshitting by politicians, for instance?)
>>"AI is thought-control by suggestion and substitution, eventually proving its superiority to the average human mind."
Thought-control was present WAY before AI technologies. Have you read "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays? Do you know what the 'advertising, marketing, sales, PR' industries are all about? They are about thought and psychology manipulation. Have you wondered about how 'political elections' use ALL the same strategies that you seem to credit to AI alone?
The human mind was HACKABLE 'before' AI, and it remains hackable after AI. You don't need AI for 'thought-control, suggestion, substitution' - you already have humans doing that.
So your argument is, AI actually optimises bad stuff humans used to do already, ergo AI is good. Lol, that sounds like AI logic.
Sorry if this sounds rude, but if THAT is how you interpreted by comment, then you are likely to be intellectually challenged.
Glad to have provided an outlet for that much steam! Have a nice night
No steam, just common sense and rational thinking (you should try it some time).
Try this one, by writers who still think: https://bettbeat.substack.com/p/the-algorithm-has-become-a-zionist
It's an article about Israel and Palestine, not about AI technologies. And like I said in my earlier comment, AI or not, people will STILL be manipulated by those seeking to take advantage of them (through narratives, revisionist history, access to factual information, etc.).
I suggest expanding your horizons to take in MORE data rather than maintaining a myopic perspective on biased opinions.
Besides, if you don't like AI, don't use it. No one is forcing you to use AI, just as no one is forcing you to consume drugs/alcohol or use guns to harm others.
But if others find BENEFICIAL USES of AI (and it helps them out in life), then I don't see what problem YOU have with it. Why should YOUR 'fear' prevent others from benefitting from the technology?
Also, you should look into 'anecdotal fallacy', 'cherry-picking fallacy' and 'sampling bias' (in regards to your comment).
Caitlin:
Epstein, dead?
Nah. He was put on a private jet and whisked away to Pedo-Land aka IsraHell.
"The western world has created a machine whose behavior goes against every healthy human impulse. The US-led world order has given birth to an out of control monster with an insatiable appetite for human flesh."
This machine is millennia old.
I never feel happy about anything the US does. I think the food the people in power are eating has something nasty in it that causes people to lose their humanity. AI built by people like Musk is a terrifying idea. I wish I could avoid it altogether but I don't think anyone will be able to totally avoid it no matter how hard they try.
Unfortunately, it is the United States of Israel, and where there is money to be made, the Empire follows.
Muslims would never have invented bombs because it is haram to burn human beings. America invented the term "collateral damage" to justify mass murdering human beings from the sky in Vietnam.
What about 9/11?
Can you read? I said Muslims would never have INVENTED bombs. Whether Muslims were even responsible for 9 11 is contested anyway.
So rude. I did consider that you said invented, but you also said it was haram to burn humans. I don't think there is any doubt about who the pilots were. I do see suggestions of Israel being involved and am interested in any actual evidence for it.
Are you shittin me??
SERIOUSLY?
I haven't seen any evidence, but people refer to it sometimes. It's a conspiracy theory, but who knows. I just saw this, but I don't trust either of these jokers: https://www.facebook.com/trtworld/posts/in-an-interview-on-piers-morgan-uncensored-tucker-carlson-asserted-that-israeli-/1240723631423209/
Be careful. They want to twist you in knots. People ,use your brain . Don't get tangled up in conspiracy theories.
'That’s just how it works in a society which only elevates that which can generate profits. The food is designed to induce craving rather than facilitate health. The entertainment is designed to distract and sedate rather than to edify. The social media is designed to be addictive rather than to help people connect with each other. It’s all geared to appeal to our baser instincts rather than to improve and inform us.' Great work! If you want to help end the US Infinity War Tour, try to persuade other nations not to sign up with their salami tactics annexations, or as they call them 'alliances' (same goes for any other MICs): https://worldbeyondwar.org/declareneutrality/
And can we collectively in the west raise a huge stink about giving yet more of our money to NATO? It's the last place it should go. NATO should be deconstructed. We should no longer feed this beast.
Our money should go to building our societies, housing and feeding us and providing reparations to the countries we've obliterated.
Imagine how lost the US govt would be if they couldn't go start wars and instigate shit around the world.
Is that a roundabout way of saying the USA should get lost? I'd imagine if it and the rest of the western world would find other ways of occupying their time -- say, for example, investing in the well-being of the people, the systems that support them, and the environment -- the world would be so much more wonderful than it is now.
100%
Imagine investing in the welfare of your citizens.
Some countries do. And they're all on the hit list of the west.
The note about the USA and its activities is of serious concern. Would it not be reasonable for Australia to make it a criminal offence under the Criminal Code to be complicit with genocide? Companies and residents of Australia would be obligated to consider their activities in a deeper context. This would confirm Australia's position as being a peace seeker rather than enabling/fostering/supporting new outbreaks of deadly serious wars. It would serve as a statement recognising the colonial wars in Australia. It would draw a line between Australia and the war leader identified in this discussion. It would place Australia as not discriminating between people of different races and religions.
Truthout just published a chilling article, 'Trump's New National Security Strategy Suggests Further Domestic Crackdown' by Ken Klippenstein, that lays out the administration's authoritarian plans for the 'homeland'; exceeding draconian post-9/11 policies. Locked and loaded Karen AG Pam Bondi breathlessly said on X this week that 'Antifa is an existential threat to our nation', illustrating the nation's cri de coeur with recent scuffles that broke out at a TPUSA event. Militarized border zones that the Pentagon calls 'National Defense Areas', and Joint Task Forces of military and civilian authorities are coordinating their efforts to protect Americans from hordes of bad hombre's, narcotics traffickers { when they don't fund or benefit intelligence operations }, advanced air and missile threats { from countries that would prefer the empire to leave them alone }, cyber intrusions, and infrastructure risks { like collapsing bridges, and crumbling roads ? }. Trump's National Security Strategy is an unprecedented coordination of military, intelligence, and civilian authorities to slam a despotic boot heel on the neck of the United States and Western Hemisphere. From Los Angeles to Venezuela, borders need securing - from the United States' fascist invasion.
If they're going after drug traffickers, they should start by shutting down the CIA.
obviously one should become antifa. don't be afraid, defy. it's how one takes the power (it's how they did it).
My hope is that this move IS finally the US's undoing.
"It’s wild how Musk just openly showed the entire world in real time how powerful people can build political biases into AI services for their own benefit."
I'm gonna tell my cerebrum on you, Elon.
In primitive societies, people gathered and hunted to survive. With the agricultural revolution, people began to cultivate to emulate nature. With slavery, social groups were distinguished between those who thought and fought and those who worked. With serfdom, serfs served the social lords. With capitalism, people consume to produce and produce to accumulate wealth through the profit derived from the exploitation of others' labor, rather than producing to satisfy everyone's vital needs. One way to make high profits is to manufacture weapons. Peace cannot be established without reversing this process. To reverse this process, we need the Republic of the Earth and its currency, Dhana. It's not hard to understand! www.asmad.org. www.dhana.org