What makes you think I’m pro-AI? Because I don’t think 1,000 people are enough to represent the opinions of countries with populations ranging from 10 million to upwards of 350 million? Gallup says they want to survey India too, is 1,000 people enough to represent the opinions of over a billion people? It’s how most polling is done, but it’s still not a large enough sample size to be representative and the data science tricks still leave large margins of error according to the research. Did you read the article or the poll I linked? The results of the poll were that most of the world is in favor of AI and enthusiastic about it despite what US citizens may want or think.
I’m not pro-AI at all, but I also realize that you can’t unfuck the goose, especially if the neighbors are much more enthusiastic about it than the US is. In regards to the technology I would like to see laws that make AI companies liable for crimes committed by their products, laws that require companies to pay extended unemployment benefits for workers displaced by AI, and a tax on companies creating or utilizing AI or owning even a single share of those that do that would go to fund reeducation for displaced workers. I’d also like to see a law where media created, even partially, by AI can’t be copyrighted. Right now it’s just a somewhat precarious (of being overturned) judicial ruling.
yes, hence our discourse. I suspect that’s obvious to most people but here I am explaining it to you.
you deliberately misrepresented the scale of the polling.
I’m not pro-AI at all,
mashing x for doubt here.
but I also realize that you can’t unfuck the goose,
so you would like to see the goose continued to get fucked huh? that’s a creepy way to put it.
see here’s the thing: just because someone did something bad, it doesn’t mean it needs to continue. we stopped lead in gas, didn’t throw up our hands and shout “WELL WE CAN’T UNFUCK LARRY, better keep the lead in” huh? CFCs. Child abuse. Hell the list of harmful things we realized were harmful and stopped doing is really long.
But you’re advocating we keep fucking that goose. Because what has it gotten us to date right? Higher prices for EVERYTHING - ram, cpus, gpus, hard drives, POWER, WATER, I mean, this is going SO FUCKING WELL right? It’s COOKING THE FUCKING PLANET, YOU DOLT. But anyway… we can’t “unfuck” larry. Shame for larry and everyone else who will suffer from all this but we can’t unfuck the goose eh? SO YOU KEEP FUCKING HIM?
ARE YOU BEGINNING TO REALIZE WHAT A SILLY, STUPID ARGUMENT YOU’RE POSING IS? Or will you double down on your love for AI, brushing all the societal impacts listed above?
I don’t hold out much hope for larry, I think his goose is fucked because assholes like you think you’ll find profits in it, and you don’t care that you’re cooking the planet along with musk, altman, amodei etc.
Honestly I was workshoping “unfucking the goose” as a way to say some things can’t be unmade. Like nuclear weapons or LLM’s. It seems like I’ll need to keep looking for another weird idiom to express the idea, the goose seems to be distracting.
You seem to be doing everything in your power to miss my point and putting words in my mouth about the issue. To state it more clearly AI is not like cfc’s in hairspray, it’s like nuclear weapons. CFC’s had a cheap alternative that was just as effective, AI doesn’t. Personally I don’t see the benefits for AI but as the article and poll suggest a lot of people do. We’re not going to get rid of it, because the will is not there and the hypothetical benefits are too alluring for the capitalists and their fascist cronies that run the world.
I don’t like AI, I think the technology is way overhyped and the potential dangers could be civilization ending so it’s not worth the risk. I understand you seem to be of the impression that if you belittle and badger people who broadly agree with you on probably 90% of the issues that will somehow translate into lawmakers regulating the tech or AI enthusiasts losing their excitement. Where we disagree seems to be at whether or not the technology can be gotten rid of, but it’s more like nuclear weapons and climate change control than leaded gas and cfc’s in that the people who hold the power want the tech and they can’t get the proposed benefits elsewhere, even if they have not yet manifested, if they ever do.
no, it’s like asbestos. nuclear science offered medical treatments, weapons AND power generation. this is like asbestos, and idiot love to shovel it into everything.
If you don’t like AI, stop going to these efforts to advocate for it.
I don’t believe you, but if you want other people to believe this schtick you need to work on your delivery a lot; all this water-fowl-fucking allusions ain’t doing it.
If you really didn’t like AI, you wouldn’t be bothered by anything I wrote. The fact that I’m hitting a nerve tells me you’ve should convince yourself first, then worry about how other people interpret your rhetoric.
you should research Midgley, the guy who put lead into gas and invented CFCs. He was killed by another one of his own inventions, you might call it suicide by misadventure. Or karma catching up.
look at all the hubris that drove his work, then ask how you’re any different. these benefits you think are coming have only cost 1.5 trillion in capex pfft
1000 people is enough to get a good estimate of opinion providing it is sampled well. Its one of the counter intuitive results of statistics that a few thousand opinions is enough to get a small percent margin of the average opinions of the sampled population no matter its size. The trouble with polling is that “average opinion of people who answer polls when asked” is not “average opinion of the group that you want to represent”, the whole art of polling is in finding the mapping between those two groups. But that isn’t helped by polling 10 or 100 thousand people instead of 1000.
There are a number of studies on the methodology of polling that suggest the margin of error is much wider than typically reported by polls by about an order of magnitude in part due to sample size. Although there are a number of non-sample size related issues, like the one you mentioned and people misreporting/lying, at play as well.
What makes you think I’m pro-AI? Because I don’t think 1,000 people are enough to represent the opinions of countries with populations ranging from 10 million to upwards of 350 million? Gallup says they want to survey India too, is 1,000 people enough to represent the opinions of over a billion people? It’s how most polling is done, but it’s still not a large enough sample size to be representative and the data science tricks still leave large margins of error according to the research. Did you read the article or the poll I linked? The results of the poll were that most of the world is in favor of AI and enthusiastic about it despite what US citizens may want or think.
I’m not pro-AI at all, but I also realize that you can’t unfuck the goose, especially if the neighbors are much more enthusiastic about it than the US is. In regards to the technology I would like to see laws that make AI companies liable for crimes committed by their products, laws that require companies to pay extended unemployment benefits for workers displaced by AI, and a tax on companies creating or utilizing AI or owning even a single share of those that do that would go to fund reeducation for displaced workers. I’d also like to see a law where media created, even partially, by AI can’t be copyrighted. Right now it’s just a somewhat precarious (of being overturned) judicial ruling.
the things you write.
yes, hence our discourse. I suspect that’s obvious to most people but here I am explaining it to you.
you deliberately misrepresented the scale of the polling.
mashing x for doubt here.
so you would like to see the goose continued to get fucked huh? that’s a creepy way to put it.
see here’s the thing: just because someone did something bad, it doesn’t mean it needs to continue. we stopped lead in gas, didn’t throw up our hands and shout “WELL WE CAN’T UNFUCK LARRY, better keep the lead in” huh? CFCs. Child abuse. Hell the list of harmful things we realized were harmful and stopped doing is really long.
But you’re advocating we keep fucking that goose. Because what has it gotten us to date right? Higher prices for EVERYTHING - ram, cpus, gpus, hard drives, POWER, WATER, I mean, this is going SO FUCKING WELL right? It’s COOKING THE FUCKING PLANET, YOU DOLT. But anyway… we can’t “unfuck” larry. Shame for larry and everyone else who will suffer from all this but we can’t unfuck the goose eh? SO YOU KEEP FUCKING HIM?
ARE YOU BEGINNING TO REALIZE WHAT A SILLY, STUPID ARGUMENT YOU’RE POSING IS? Or will you double down on your love for AI, brushing all the societal impacts listed above?
I don’t hold out much hope for larry, I think his goose is fucked because assholes like you think you’ll find profits in it, and you don’t care that you’re cooking the planet along with musk, altman, amodei etc.
Larry deserves better.
Honestly I was workshoping “unfucking the goose” as a way to say some things can’t be unmade. Like nuclear weapons or LLM’s. It seems like I’ll need to keep looking for another weird idiom to express the idea, the goose seems to be distracting.
You seem to be doing everything in your power to miss my point and putting words in my mouth about the issue. To state it more clearly AI is not like cfc’s in hairspray, it’s like nuclear weapons. CFC’s had a cheap alternative that was just as effective, AI doesn’t. Personally I don’t see the benefits for AI but as the article and poll suggest a lot of people do. We’re not going to get rid of it, because the will is not there and the hypothetical benefits are too alluring for the capitalists and their fascist cronies that run the world.
I don’t like AI, I think the technology is way overhyped and the potential dangers could be civilization ending so it’s not worth the risk. I understand you seem to be of the impression that if you belittle and badger people who broadly agree with you on probably 90% of the issues that will somehow translate into lawmakers regulating the tech or AI enthusiasts losing their excitement. Where we disagree seems to be at whether or not the technology can be gotten rid of, but it’s more like nuclear weapons and climate change control than leaded gas and cfc’s in that the people who hold the power want the tech and they can’t get the proposed benefits elsewhere, even if they have not yet manifested, if they ever do.
no, it’s like asbestos. nuclear science offered medical treatments, weapons AND power generation. this is like asbestos, and idiot love to shovel it into everything.
If you don’t like AI, stop going to these efforts to advocate for it.
I don’t believe you, but if you want other people to believe this schtick you need to work on your delivery a lot; all this water-fowl-fucking allusions ain’t doing it.
If you really didn’t like AI, you wouldn’t be bothered by anything I wrote. The fact that I’m hitting a nerve tells me you’ve should convince yourself first, then worry about how other people interpret your rhetoric.
you should research Midgley, the guy who put lead into gas and invented CFCs. He was killed by another one of his own inventions, you might call it suicide by misadventure. Or karma catching up.
look at all the hubris that drove his work, then ask how you’re any different. these benefits you think are coming have only cost 1.5 trillion in capex pfft
1000 people is enough to get a good estimate of opinion providing it is sampled well. Its one of the counter intuitive results of statistics that a few thousand opinions is enough to get a small percent margin of the average opinions of the sampled population no matter its size. The trouble with polling is that “average opinion of people who answer polls when asked” is not “average opinion of the group that you want to represent”, the whole art of polling is in finding the mapping between those two groups. But that isn’t helped by polling 10 or 100 thousand people instead of 1000.
There are a number of studies on the methodology of polling that suggest the margin of error is much wider than typically reported by polls by about an order of magnitude in part due to sample size. Although there are a number of non-sample size related issues, like the one you mentioned and people misreporting/lying, at play as well.