I had this nightmare of a gaming company where the owner sicked a multi-agent swarm on scraping the internet to do market analysis on what trends would make a successful game. Had another model craft a prompt to turn it into a game and past that prompt to Opus5.5.
I swear to god I am close to just going off grid. We are so past the pale
The purpose of art is not to make me feel something. That’s hedonism; functionally masturbation.
The purpose of art is to serve as a method of communication and bond forming. That’s the clinical way of putting it but to evoke a bit more “woo”…
The purpose of art is to allow two or more humans to communicate on a level simple dialogue cannot achieve. It’s to take the thoughts that live in your head, with or without the limitations of compression needed for transmission (medium), and put them in my head. It was never about feelings or personal satisfaction, those are happy bi-products; its about community and human connection.
AI adds a layer of abstraction in the form of a second, non-human, communicator. I cannot attribute art created by Claude to its user, the user has been obscured, and I can no longer hear their thoughts.
We’re talking about a technology that is able to self direct when solving abstract problems, able to develop novel solutions to frontier mathematics. Drum machines do not maintain an internal high dimensional latent information space and display indicators of g. Synthesizers cannot create a novel melody.
This is not “just a tool”. It is impossible for me to attribute ‘art’ created by AI to the human that prompted it. I also now live with the constant paranoia that what is being showed to me was made by an LLM much like who me you are responding to.
It’s not that it’s bad or soulless, quite the contrary, it’s often quite good. It just wasn’t made by a human.
Honest question. Why would you want “true AI”?
This is like saying “true mega bubonic-AIDS can be made if we do XYZ”.
Stop, stop making mega bubonic-AIDS
Super not fine. It needs to be regulated into the ground. Medical research? Fine. Literally anything else? Get in line for your inference application.
There’s actually a reasonable argument for global regulation of AI.
Every country faces an economic doom loop as AI becomes more capable, once it is capable of automating away a sufficient amount of labor the economy will spiral. This means every country, in a game theory sense, is facing a no-win prisoners dillema. That is precisely the recipe that allowed for nuclear nonproliferation.
It is completely within the realm of possibility for the international community to agree to control the training of models at the national level and heavily regulate distribution commercially, similar to what we do with nuclear power.
While I agree with your materialist assessment here comrade my primary point of contention is the incentive structure present in these tools. As Iris best put it in her comparison to Heidegger’s human-gestalt model, the human-llm gestalt is an ugly one.
We are on the same page as to the failures of the luddites, my argument is that these tools are anti-worker at their core. Even if the tools are cheap and abundant that would not resolve the fact that they alienate workers from their labor to a degree that can only be mitigated with heavy amounts of regulation and restriction. In contrast your position my take is not that an abundance of the tool will democratize its use, its that the only way to use it safely is with a dictatorship of the proletariat.
This is fun :)
The comparison to the luddites is interesting as you’re tacitly saying “no you guys are right but your fucked anyway”.
There is no good end with this technology. None. It will be used to abuse the working class, it will alienate workers from their labor, and it will bring an enormous amount of harm to vast numbers of people. This technology gives nothing in return for this loss except the ability to consume faster.
These discussions never focus on the fact that this tool optimizes the, already, most efficient part of the human supply chain, ideation and design. This tool does not make any of the other bottlenecks that slow human progress faster, those being implementation, adoption, and translation of solutions to different environments. The human race had the tools to solve world hunger shortly after the invention of nitrogenated fertilizer; yet here we are. The human race created a source of nearly infinite clean energy with negative temperature-coefficient fission reactors; yet here we are.
But you’re ultimately right. The luddites lost, we’ll lose, and we’re fucked.
It’s always refreshing to read something that I can be 100% sure was not written by an AI.
Absolutely goated. There’s just something about it that feels good. I think it’s the fact the it feels a bit like writing Unix pipelines but in reverse. You can visualize data move through your program like pipes.
A few of the erdos problems have been independently verified. It’s legit.
Violent revolution with the express intent of ending the lives of political enemies. Thought that was pretty clear?
OpenBSD is pretty great. I really hope open source projects settle into a human write + LLM static review workflow but I know that’s wishful thinking.
Till then OpenBSD/NetBSD