The figures and the narratives are political posturing. Define the spectrum and the situation to win before the conversation starts. As Corbin points out the numbers and explanations the AI bigshots, their backers and their bankers are slinging do not describe the present or the prospect of potential profits, and most certainly ignore the past. History paints a different picture.
Did ATM machines eliminate bank tellers? No. Did spreadsheets and accounting software eliminate accounting jobs? Quite the opposite. When did more regulation, often presented as "deregulation," ever reduce so-called red tape? Deregulation in fact means new and de facto more rules. More, bigger bureaucracy.
It is great news that so many people seem to be engaged with these questions and seem ready for action. It would be truly great if we can all keep our heads clear and not get distracted by shiny new objects and silly promises, or fall into a natural tendency for risk aversion and follow fear into further folly. Follow the facts and the motivation, including the money.
Thanks again, Corbin, for kicking things into perspective. It will help with the work ahead.
Perhaps Trump was a gift. He awoke so many minds. No choice but to start using our brains to rid ourselves of this criminal.
AI coming to life with a society of lightweights obsessed with celebrity and nothing deep was a disaster waiting to happen.
You made a lot of great points to ponder. People and leaders need to think about what’s going on with Ai. Hopefully they will now that they’re awake.
Yes, it will end jobs but it will let an individual run their own business more easily. There’s good and bad in all new technology. We need to use our brains to figure this out so we harness AI for the good. Trump did wake us up when we needed it.
I discovered Corbin Trent’s “America’s Undoing” / “A Fight Worth Having” about a year ago and have been following him since. Corbin has some awesome ideas and suggestions, most of which I agree with 100%. Some would be easier - and quicker - to implement than others, but so far, I’ve seen very little concrete action on much of any of it. I totally understand that the implementation of probably 98% of new ideas moves VERY slowly in the earlier stages and is not always evident to outsiders. A lot of it is fundraising, political positioning, and planning, but we don’t have the luxury of a lot of time to do all that? How can we get some of this going faster? I’m 74 and would love to be involved in things I can help with, but I don’t know what that is (besides contributing and voicing my support politically), nor who to contact about it. I’ve seen a couple of emails from Corbin describing study/research/planning efforts he’s getting set up, but that’s about it. Am I not looking in the right places?
Having just finished The Proving Ground by Michael Connelly - a Lincoln Lawyer novel about a teenager who was encouraged by a chatbot to kill his ex-girlfriend - yet another issue that has come up lately. It was inspired by a lawsuit based on a similar killing in Florida.
There sure are uses for AI, but guardrails and regulations need to be put in place, and these AI billionaires dont seem too concerned about all that!
Great analysis Corbin. And that's not to mention the little problem that the AI genie keeps figuring out how to escape the broligarchy bottle, and so far no one can figure out how and why, much less predict the consequences.
Those sociopath billionaires have already amply demonstrated that they don't have empathy and they don't value human beings outside of their cartel structure. When they don't need our labor and we can't buy their shit, we become vermin to exterminate. That's where I fear this leads.
Mr. Mamdani - Most of Rikers is filled with people who have committed no crime. They simply can't make bail and have no effectual lawyer. If only 1% of those children have any chance of winning, may I suggest the people in Rikers who are actually your constituents have a much better chance, especially if you could focus your attention and resources on them?
There's also the fact that AI doesn't work without energy, and it can't simulate energy into existence. It can replace (some) labor, but the more expensive the energy it needs, the less competitive it becomes. And the era of cheap energy is coming to an end faster than even the most pessimistic (or perhaps realistic) among us expected. Pop! Goes the weasel ...
Why to speculate about who is going to own what and lose sleep about it? It's crystal clear. You won't be given vouchers. What for? Forget about capitalism. Forget about profits. Forget about competition. A few Lords, a caste, the "chosen" ones will own and govern everything, including humans (technically, the ownership is not even required; it's an outdated category). You will be allowed to do (and get) anything from what is allowed; similar to pet animals, but under total control. Some may even enjoy this life that could look even luxury. Everything will be decided for you and any disobedience will be punished. In some way, it's like military order that regulate every element of social and personal life (if something personal has left).
The key hurdle is that this is unlikely to be implementable because of natural limitations (natural resources, human psychology, AI deficiencies, etc.). Nevertheless, it might be a much more preferable option comparing to what can, absolutely realistically, expected within a few decades because of global climate deterioration.
The technocratic dystopia is more likely to cause environmental disaster because of all of the resources it takes to run it. The Climate Change movement is NOT an environmental movement; it is a totalitarian surveillance and control movement. Most of what they advocate for puts the world's resources into fewer and fewer hands, the rest of us will "own nothing, and be happy."
Technocracy is never better than freedom. We must view these technocrats with skepticism at every turn. Everything evil comes under the guise of something good. What we never get to see from the "tech bros" is the actual cost-benefit/cost-risk analysis. If we could see that, nobody would want AI or any other means of putting every resource on the planet (including humans) under the control of a handful of oligarchs.
I saw this comment by @graciethunders regarding Jesse Welles’ latest song (“Keep Thinking”?) posted by Andy Borowitz: “The only civilization that wouldn’t save itself because it wasn’t profitable”. 😢
AI points to things we could just get rid of. As someone who has yet to use AI in anyway, talking to people has led me to believe that most things that they’re using AI for could probably just go away. Overwrought emails, over complicated forms, the busywork you speak of here. It is at least in part an over complicated answer to an over complicated question. If we were to pull that out of the percent of GDP then what’s left?
I use AI a lot. It’s an incredibly useful tool. As useful as power tools on a construction job site. Replacing or eliminating redundancies and useless bureaucracy would be a great use of AI. Research, development, design assistance, coding, data analysis, etc… there are a ton of uses for AI and robotics. I think the question that keeps me up at night is who owns them. Who owns the machines?
AI is making everyone's writing sound the same. You can tell when AI is being used when you read phrases like, (blah blah blah). "It always was". Or, "once you see it you can't unsee it". There are others. Every time I spot these things I feel like I'm being diminished. I miss originality.
I keep coming back to this too. I use AI and can see how useful it can be, but I’m also uneasy about some of its larger impacts, including the environmental costs. For me, the questions of who owns the technology, who benefits from it, what resources it consumes, and whether it ultimately contributes to the well-being of people and the planet are all connected.
God bless my AI for how it saves me time supplying me with info. Beyond that --- um, where it can kill us all -- we are so far in the stratosphere of how things in this technological world work that it feels like somewhat of an energy-suck for all of us sheeples to fuss over it. Then again, thinking together is at the top of the to-dos for us, and it's great to have topics with universal elements for everyone to kick in on.
This may be too naive a question, but if we had a cooperative zeitgeist I wonder if AI would reflect that rather than ever becoming destructive to us. Or, is the tiger we've unleashed something with a destructive mind of its own?
The figures and the narratives are political posturing. Define the spectrum and the situation to win before the conversation starts. As Corbin points out the numbers and explanations the AI bigshots, their backers and their bankers are slinging do not describe the present or the prospect of potential profits, and most certainly ignore the past. History paints a different picture.
Did ATM machines eliminate bank tellers? No. Did spreadsheets and accounting software eliminate accounting jobs? Quite the opposite. When did more regulation, often presented as "deregulation," ever reduce so-called red tape? Deregulation in fact means new and de facto more rules. More, bigger bureaucracy.
It is great news that so many people seem to be engaged with these questions and seem ready for action. It would be truly great if we can all keep our heads clear and not get distracted by shiny new objects and silly promises, or fall into a natural tendency for risk aversion and follow fear into further folly. Follow the facts and the motivation, including the money.
Thanks again, Corbin, for kicking things into perspective. It will help with the work ahead.
Perhaps Trump was a gift. He awoke so many minds. No choice but to start using our brains to rid ourselves of this criminal.
AI coming to life with a society of lightweights obsessed with celebrity and nothing deep was a disaster waiting to happen.
You made a lot of great points to ponder. People and leaders need to think about what’s going on with Ai. Hopefully they will now that they’re awake.
Yes, it will end jobs but it will let an individual run their own business more easily. There’s good and bad in all new technology. We need to use our brains to figure this out so we harness AI for the good. Trump did wake us up when we needed it.
I discovered Corbin Trent’s “America’s Undoing” / “A Fight Worth Having” about a year ago and have been following him since. Corbin has some awesome ideas and suggestions, most of which I agree with 100%. Some would be easier - and quicker - to implement than others, but so far, I’ve seen very little concrete action on much of any of it. I totally understand that the implementation of probably 98% of new ideas moves VERY slowly in the earlier stages and is not always evident to outsiders. A lot of it is fundraising, political positioning, and planning, but we don’t have the luxury of a lot of time to do all that? How can we get some of this going faster? I’m 74 and would love to be involved in things I can help with, but I don’t know what that is (besides contributing and voicing my support politically), nor who to contact about it. I’ve seen a couple of emails from Corbin describing study/research/planning efforts he’s getting set up, but that’s about it. Am I not looking in the right places?
PS, I have gone to his website and signed up for updates. Any other suggestions?
Having just finished The Proving Ground by Michael Connelly - a Lincoln Lawyer novel about a teenager who was encouraged by a chatbot to kill his ex-girlfriend - yet another issue that has come up lately. It was inspired by a lawsuit based on a similar killing in Florida.
There sure are uses for AI, but guardrails and regulations need to be put in place, and these AI billionaires dont seem too concerned about all that!
Great analysis Corbin. And that's not to mention the little problem that the AI genie keeps figuring out how to escape the broligarchy bottle, and so far no one can figure out how and why, much less predict the consequences.
Those sociopath billionaires have already amply demonstrated that they don't have empathy and they don't value human beings outside of their cartel structure. When they don't need our labor and we can't buy their shit, we become vermin to exterminate. That's where I fear this leads.
Same here
100%
Boiled down, distilled and described pretty much *on point*. Thanks Corbin! See you in the streets friend.
ditto
Mr. Mamdani - Most of Rikers is filled with people who have committed no crime. They simply can't make bail and have no effectual lawyer. If only 1% of those children have any chance of winning, may I suggest the people in Rikers who are actually your constituents have a much better chance, especially if you could focus your attention and resources on them?
Build, baby, build.
There's also the fact that AI doesn't work without energy, and it can't simulate energy into existence. It can replace (some) labor, but the more expensive the energy it needs, the less competitive it becomes. And the era of cheap energy is coming to an end faster than even the most pessimistic (or perhaps realistic) among us expected. Pop! Goes the weasel ...
A rich trove of reality. Scary as hell, with a side of get involved. Thanks!
Why to speculate about who is going to own what and lose sleep about it? It's crystal clear. You won't be given vouchers. What for? Forget about capitalism. Forget about profits. Forget about competition. A few Lords, a caste, the "chosen" ones will own and govern everything, including humans (technically, the ownership is not even required; it's an outdated category). You will be allowed to do (and get) anything from what is allowed; similar to pet animals, but under total control. Some may even enjoy this life that could look even luxury. Everything will be decided for you and any disobedience will be punished. In some way, it's like military order that regulate every element of social and personal life (if something personal has left).
Just read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment as an introduction.
The key hurdle is that this is unlikely to be implementable because of natural limitations (natural resources, human psychology, AI deficiencies, etc.). Nevertheless, it might be a much more preferable option comparing to what can, absolutely realistically, expected within a few decades because of global climate deterioration.
The technocratic dystopia is more likely to cause environmental disaster because of all of the resources it takes to run it. The Climate Change movement is NOT an environmental movement; it is a totalitarian surveillance and control movement. Most of what they advocate for puts the world's resources into fewer and fewer hands, the rest of us will "own nothing, and be happy."
Technocracy is never better than freedom. We must view these technocrats with skepticism at every turn. Everything evil comes under the guise of something good. What we never get to see from the "tech bros" is the actual cost-benefit/cost-risk analysis. If we could see that, nobody would want AI or any other means of putting every resource on the planet (including humans) under the control of a handful of oligarchs.
I saw this comment by @graciethunders regarding Jesse Welles’ latest song (“Keep Thinking”?) posted by Andy Borowitz: “The only civilization that wouldn’t save itself because it wasn’t profitable”. 😢
We are the organ grinder's monkeys ...
AI points to things we could just get rid of. As someone who has yet to use AI in anyway, talking to people has led me to believe that most things that they’re using AI for could probably just go away. Overwrought emails, over complicated forms, the busywork you speak of here. It is at least in part an over complicated answer to an over complicated question. If we were to pull that out of the percent of GDP then what’s left?
I use AI a lot. It’s an incredibly useful tool. As useful as power tools on a construction job site. Replacing or eliminating redundancies and useless bureaucracy would be a great use of AI. Research, development, design assistance, coding, data analysis, etc… there are a ton of uses for AI and robotics. I think the question that keeps me up at night is who owns them. Who owns the machines?
AI is making everyone's writing sound the same. You can tell when AI is being used when you read phrases like, (blah blah blah). "It always was". Or, "once you see it you can't unsee it". There are others. Every time I spot these things I feel like I'm being diminished. I miss originality.
I keep coming back to this too. I use AI and can see how useful it can be, but I’m also uneasy about some of its larger impacts, including the environmental costs. For me, the questions of who owns the technology, who benefits from it, what resources it consumes, and whether it ultimately contributes to the well-being of people and the planet are all connected.
God bless my AI for how it saves me time supplying me with info. Beyond that --- um, where it can kill us all -- we are so far in the stratosphere of how things in this technological world work that it feels like somewhat of an energy-suck for all of us sheeples to fuss over it. Then again, thinking together is at the top of the to-dos for us, and it's great to have topics with universal elements for everyone to kick in on.
This may be too naive a question, but if we had a cooperative zeitgeist I wonder if AI would reflect that rather than ever becoming destructive to us. Or, is the tiger we've unleashed something with a destructive mind of its own?