←back to thread

Problems the AI industry is not addressing adequately

(www.thealgorithmicbridge.com)
197 points baylearn | 5 comments | 05 Jul 25 10:33 UTC | HN request time: 0.721s | source
Show context
lherron ◴[05 Jul 25 13:53 UTC] No.44472822[source]▶
Honestly this article sounds like someone is unhappy that AI isn’t being deployed/developed “the way I feel it should be done”.

Talent changing companies is bad. Companies making money to pay for the next training run is bad. Consumers getting products they want is bad.

In the author’s view, AI should be advanced in a research lab by altruistic researchers and given directly to other altruistic researchers to advance humanity. It definitely shouldn’t be used by us common folk for fun and personal productivity.

replies(2): >>44473764 #>>44475233 #
lightbulbish ◴[05 Jul 25 20:19 UTC] No.44475233[source]▶
I feel I could argue the counterpoint. Hijacking the pathways of the human brain that leads to addictive behaviour has the potential to utterly ruins peoples lives. And so talking about it, if you have good intentions, seems like a thing anyone with the heart in the right place would.

Take VEO3 and YouTube integration as an example:

Google made VEO3 and YouTube has shorts and are aware of the data that shows addictive behaviour (i.e. a person sitting down at 11pm, sitting up doing shorts for 3 hours, and then having 5 hours of sleep, before doing shorts on the bus on the way to work) - I am sure there are other negative patterns, but this is one I can confirm from a friend.

If you have data that shows your other distribution platform are being used to an excessive amount, and you create a powerful new AI content generator, is that good for the users?

replies(1): >>44475699 #
1. Ray20 ◴[05 Jul 25 21:29 UTC] No.44475699[source]▶
The fact is that not all people exhibit the described behavior. So the actions of corporations cannot be considered unambiguously bad. For example, it will help to cleanse the human gene pool of genes responsible for addictive behavior.
replies(3): >>44476418 #>>44477979 #>>44480287 #
2. lightbulbish ◴[05 Jul 25 23:38 UTC] No.44476418[source]▶
I never suggested they were unambiguously bad, I meant to propose that it is a valid concern to talk about.

In addition, with your argument, should you not legalize all drugs in the quest for maximising profits to a select few shareholders?

AFAIK, the workings of addiction is not fully known, I.e. it’s not only those with dopaminergetic dispositions that get ”caught”. Upbringing, socioeconomic factors and mental health are also variables. Reducing it down to genes I fear is reductionist.

replies(1): >>44476504 #
3. Ray20 ◴[05 Jul 25 23:54 UTC] No.44476504[source]▶
> it’s not only those with dopaminergetic dispositions that get ”caught”. Upbringing, socioeconomic factors and mental health are also variables.

So we not only improving our pool of genes, but we also conduct a selection of effective cultural practices

4. quirkot ◴[06 Jul 25 05:03 UTC] No.44477979[source]▶
Counterpoint: eugenics are bad.

You are saying suffering is allowable/good because eventually different people won't be able to suffer that way. That is an unethical position to hold.

5. ch_fr ◴[06 Jul 25 12:40 UTC] No.44480287[source]▶
A quick glance at your other comments shows that your account seems to be purpose-built to come up with the most inflammatory response every single time, you might very well just be a chatgpt prompt.