re: #22 The Ghost of a Flea

Yeah, the hard thing about talking about AI is that really we’re talking about big algorithms, and there’s a whole taxonomy to big algorithms that’s lumped under one term…largely because the people who own those machines are incentivized to hype their product as the cusp of scifi general intelligence.

Like…really big algorithms for research are useful and good, as long as they’re not black boxes. LLMs are productivity tools. Image makers are…interesting…but ultimately also a productivity tool.

The part which triggers the Luddite in me is that the people controlling these systems have no incentive (with a hype-based tech economy) to ever discuss their limitations. The immediate leap from LLM production to “we must be assigned power now to align general intelligence that we will create later” is…scammy at best, deeply sinister when contextualized by the general Palo Alto/Silicon Valley worldview. Also, that AI owners try to conceal the human labor required to make these systems function—constant labeling and pruning done in sweatshop conditions—and how they are selling these models to large businesses speaks to how this technology exists to primarily convenience capital-holders, and while it is entirely possible these systems could be used for pro-social ends most of the existing value propositions involve facilitating squeezing more value from more and more desperate people.

(And a specific concern we should all have is that the veneer of objectivity granted to AI by both existing tropes and the ongoing promotional campaign has value even if AI has no objectivity. These are black boxes that create pretexts, and that technology in the hands of people making life-and-death decisions should be questioned constantly. What would powerful people want? A machine that can challenge their preferred conclusions or a machine that is constrained to justify their conclusions?)

my dad was an intelligent guy.
his (our) business was small, staff turnover was regular and that was costly. institutional knowledge walks out the door and then there’s retraining the next group…

so he was forward thinking and always on the lookout for an efficiency edge - that meant automation.

and we did a lot. given our size and market.

he’d see something on tv, and ask me can we do that, use that?
i’d say something like, we could if it existed. right now, they’re lying. this capability doesnt actually exist commercially.
and when it does, it wont be available to us for 10 or 15 years.
oh, and it’ll never work like that.
don’t believe it - with the same confidence you dont believe every other ad.

it was a constant ‘that’s not really real’