←back to thread

LLM Inevitabilism

(tomrenner.com)
1619 points SwoopsFromAbove | 3 comments | 15 Jul 25 04:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.454s | source
Show context
keiferski ◴[15 Jul 25 06:08 UTC] No.44568304[source]▶
One of the negative consequences of the “modern secular age” is that many very intelligent, thoughtful people feel justified in brushing away millennia of philosophical and religious thought because they deem it outdated or no longer relevant. (The book A Secular Age is a great read on this, btw, I think I’ve recommended it here on HN at least half a dozen times.)

And so a result of this is that they fail to notice the same recurring psychological patterns that underly thoughts about how the world is, and how it will be in the future - and then adjust their positions because of this awareness.

For example - this AI inevitabilism stuff is not dissimilar to many ideas originally from the Reformation, like predestination. The notion that history is just on some inevitable pre-planned path is not a new idea, except now the actor has changed from God to technology. On a psychological level it’s the same thing: an offloading of freedom and responsibility to a powerful, vaguely defined force that may or may not exist outside the collective minds of human society.

replies(15): >>44568532 #>>44568602 #>>44568862 #>>44568899 #>>44569025 #>>44569218 #>>44569429 #>>44571000 #>>44571224 #>>44571418 #>>44572498 #>>44573222 #>>44573302 #>>44578191 #>>44578192 #
nonameiguess ◴[15 Jul 25 14:18 UTC] No.44571418[source]▶
It actually seems more to me like dialectical materialism, which started centuries ago and was already secular. It bears more in character to the differences that other commenters have already voiced, in that human actors not only believed in its inevitability, but attempted to bring it about themselves. Multiple global superpowers implemented forced industrialization, cultural reformation, and command economies to bring it about.

The difference this time isn't sacred versus secular. It's public versus private. Whereas the purveyors of communism were governments, this is being done by corporations. Well-funded private organizations are led by decision makers who believe strongly this is the future, it is inevitable, and their only hope is to get there first. The actor didn't change from God to technology. It changed from labor to capital.

I make no comment on whether they will prove to be more correct than the believers in communism, but the analogy is obvious either way.

replies(1): >>44572229 #
1. leshow ◴[15 Jul 25 15:32 UTC] No.44572229[source]▶
I kinda feel this way too. Reading some of the blog posts by AI "luminaries" I'm struck by how Stalinist they sound. They hold out some utopia that exists in their minds, and they are ready to feed people into the meat grinder to try and make it a reality. Stalin said that this generation would suffer so that the next lived in utopia, and that's kind of the same pitch they are making.

I think if we actually cared about making a better world, you'd take steps where each successive step is a positive one. Free healthcare, clean energy investments, etc..

replies(2): >>44572274 #>>44580899 #
2. dragonwriter ◴[15 Jul 25 15:37 UTC] No.44572274[source]▶
> I think if we actually cared about making a better world, you'd take steps where each successive step is a positive one.

Yeah, but lots of people don't care about that, they care about acheiving their visions of power, and they need an excuse to justify other people suffering for them. They aren’t seeking long term improvements at the cost of short term suffering, they are using a mirage of utopia over the hill to sell people a deal which is only suffering, now and for however long they can be kept in line.

3. satyrun ◴[16 Jul 25 11:11 UTC] No.44580899[source]▶
In other words, "if we cared about the world, we would only do things that line up with my personal political beliefs and my political beliefs are obviously correct"