this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023

169 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

63186 readers

3359 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

169

MIT Economist Daron Acemoğlu Takes on Big Tech: "Our Future Will Be Very Dystopian" (www.spiegel.de)

submitted 2 years ago by ShroOmeric@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] PoopSpiderman@lemmy.world 76 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Our present is pretty dystopian to be fair.

[–] saucyloggins@lemmy.world 37 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Trump is almost 1:1 a character straight from Transmetropolitan.

Then you have people like Elon that are straight from any cyberpunk media corporate heads.

The parallels between the themes of a cyberpunk dystopia and the present are drawing pretty close.

We just don’t get any of the cool shit like cybernetic implants.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We will but they’ll be owned by Musk et al

[–] CaptKoala@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And if your don't pay your bill, your eyes will shut down, vision as a subscription service mwah

[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The new iSight, for only 69.99$/mo.

[–] CaptKoala@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

It's actually $69.69/mo (nice), please be more accurate next time sir.

[+] Kodemystic@lemmy.kodemystic.dev -6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I agree, but sometimes I think, imagine you were in the middleages and your village just gets raided by a Ghengis Khan battalion or a Viking tribe or something, your wife and daughter get raped and killed in front of you, your frinds killed, you get chosen for blood eagle for later on in the day. Wtv middleages scenario, or any other ancient lawless period of time you choose, these events were not that much unlikely to happen. What word do we use for that? Not dystopian but what? Were things ever better than what they are now? Maybe democracy was an interesting experience, convenient for times when the beer flows easy out of the barril, and everyone's happy. Now, the tide is changing, ressources are scarce, environment is changing, we're now 8 billion and counting. Maybe dystopian times were always inevitable. I will resist it sure, but, thinking rationally, there doesn't seem to be a lot of hope honestly. Unless Aliens show up to straighten us up or something wild like that.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This has nothing to do with the Middle Ages. Stop bringing up shit that doesn't matter.

[–] Kodemystic@lemmy.kodemystic.dev -2 points 2 years ago

Lobsters

[+] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

I am sorry, but I am not buying his point. Every technological change that had significant impact on our economy (fire, iron making, machinery, electronics, computers, internet) benefited most of the people. I challenge you to name even one counter example.

[+] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] MxM111@kbin.social -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You are making very different argument, with which I actually agree. But his point was counter argument to the statement that technology benefited us in the past. And his counter argument is bad and just wrong.

AI is nothing like what was in the past. That should be the argument, not that in the past technology did not benefited us.

[+] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I find his statement about wind mills without any merit. I am not historian and forgive me for being lazy, but if If I ask ChatGPT4 about it, here is the answer I get:

The invention of the windmill had a substantial impact on peasant life, particularly in medieval Europe. Before windmills, much of the labor-intensive tasks like grinding grain, pumping water, and other mechanical work were done manually or with the help of animals. The introduction of windmills automated these processes to some extent, making life easier for peasants by reducing their labor burden.

The windmill can be considered one of the key innovations that started moving societies away from purely manual labor, allowing people to focus on other tasks and thereby improving overall quality of life. While it didn't entirely revolutionize the peasant lifestyle overnight, it was a step towards greater efficiency and productivity.

—-

Yes, I understand that it is not really a proof, but at least some evidence that his statement is simply hot air.

[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You can't use ChatGPT to rebut an argument made by an expert who just wrote an entire book about the topic. He even explains in that article why this isn't right, which the person you're replying to quoted in their comment:

Take medieval windmills, a very transformative technology. It changed the organization of textile manufacturing, but especially agriculture. But you didn’t see much improvement in the conditions of the peasants. The windmills were controlled by landowners and churches. This narrow elite collected the gains. [emphasis added] They decided who could use the windmills. They killed off competition

[–] Cheeseisgood1981@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

You are making very different argument,

But they're not. They're making these ame point, an you just said you agreed with it. What is the point of the rest of your responses?

Like, the person you're responding to laid out the argument from the article, you said "nah, but if they said that I would totally be on their side".

Then, they pointed out how the article definitely made the point they're saying it made and gave you a citation.

Then, you went, " nah, fam. RE: Windmills - That's crazy talk".

Brother, you demonstrably said you agreed with them if they were making the point they obviously made. What are you doing?

[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Nuclear weapons, the maxim gun, lead paint, lead gasoline, basically all lead-based products, thalidomide, CFCs, the electric chair, agent orange, asbestos, oxycodone, zyklon b, refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, disposable plastics, cigarettes, trans fats, ...

I think @PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com is doing a great job of pointing to the actual substance of the argument, so I'll leave that to them, but it's actually really easy to come up with a long list of technological horrors that absolutely did not benefit most people but had huge impacts on our economy.

I do think "impact on our economy" is a pretty squishy phrase that'll give you some wiggle room, but many of these nightmare technologies are inextricably and inseparably tied to the way we've structured our economy. Likewise, I think it's easy to define "technology" in convenient ways for these kinds of arguments, but also ends up being circular pretty quick.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yes, arguably I was talking about technologies that had paramount impact on economy on the level AI will have, and none of those can be considered like this.

I have also answered to PeepinGoodArgs about windmills.

[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is what I mean when I say it's going to end up being a circular argument.

Both the maxim gun and nuclear weapons had the biggest possible impacts possible on the economy. The maxim gun (and other war technologies) were hugely important in the viability of colonial administration. Nuclear weapons made the US one of two superpowers, which defined 20th century economic debate.

High fructose corn syrup has had a paramount impact on the entire American food system, probably the single most important part of an economy, from our agriculture to our food processing.

Plastics have so transformed our economy that we rely on it to get basically any physical good to the consumer, and the resulting trash now exists in every part of Earth, including our own bodies.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is there harm side from technologies? Of course. But say plastic overall has much more economic good for an average person. And I do not think that war and war technologies is part of this discussion. By definition everything relating to war is waste of resources on civilization scale. It was always so, has nothing to do with technology and our discussion.

[–] Cheeseisgood1981@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

"But see, if you draw all these bizarre, arbitrary lines around things, I'm absolutely correct. We're talking about technology, not economics when it comes to war, because then I'd have to acknowledge that imperialism drives economics and it immediately defeats my argument."

"Plastic doesn't count because it does more good than harm and -- STOP GESTURING EXCITEDLY AT GLOBAL WARMING!!! WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT!"

That's what you sound like. Why are the things that invalidate your point out of bounds?

I could prove to you that war is actually a good thing as long as we don't discuss the loss of human life, or the losing side of any of them in any way. Should we have that discussion next?

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Ahh the the cynics hindsight. I’ll just leave with you’re right but you’re far more wrong. The advancements will always come, no matter the form, those highlighted led to enlightenment on the benefits AND dangers that we were unaware of. We refined them increased our understanding of new risks making them easier to avoid and ended up better off while furthering our understanding . All a knowledge that benefited us further than just it’s application to better humanity with knowledge.

[–] Cheeseisgood1981@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We needed nuclear arms to teach us that giant bombs that could vaporize cities and irradiate significant portions of the globe were bad? We needed asbestos to teach us to be careful what we used to insulate things? We didn't learn that from the untreated tin cans we stored foodstuffs in that poisoned people in the 1800's?

You phrased this as a "gott'em", but it's really bizarre logic.

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Nuclear arms brought us nuclear power and the flow on effects like leaving our planet for the first time, medicines, list goes on and on and on.

What’s sad here is your cynical view on life. Name 3 good things to come from the military industry. If you cant you should consider seeking help. Depression should not be treated any differently than your physical health.

[–] Pig@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I can, totally, see AI only benefitting the people who own the code and make policies for it. Despite the fact that it may be used to "benefit" most people, the ones who will benefit the most are the people who own it. Similar to targeted ads. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that gathers insane swathes of information on individuals, and that information is bought and sold to the highest bidder. You could make the argument that it's easier to buy shoes online, but is it worth having literally everything about you sold to whoever is willing to buy it? It's usually a ruse crafted by people with the ability to profit off of others, making the majority think they're benefiting in some minute way.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

What Acemoglu is saying is fundamentally a Marxist argument, and I'm saying that with no value judgments attached, I'm just pointing out factually that he's essentially saying the same thing as Marx. In summary, technology tends to disproportionately benefit the people who can afford to implement it (the owners). AI is a means of production. While it's currently possible for anyone to download the means of production for free, no violence required, currently you've got several large AI companies (like OpenAI) trying to pull the ladder up behind themselves under the guise of safety and ethics concerns. They're trying to protect themselves from the tendency of the rate of profit to fall by angling to limit the pool of competitors. Indeed, much of whether a technology benefits society at large is dictated by the barriers to entry to using that technology. If they are successful, the barriers to entry will be made much higher, and it will all but guarantee that the benefits of AI stay at the top.

[–] Peanutbjelly@sopuli.xyz 14 points 2 years ago

Humanity is already plunging into dystopia without AI. Changing A.I. Doesn't matter as much as changing our economic system, and flaunting of wealth and power to ensure it only gets worse. A.I. Just makes it more immediate and obvious.

[–] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The Fediverse is the first pebble rolling down the hill of corporate internet. 3D printers, AI generated media, right to repair, modular phones and laptops, all are the beginning of the end of mega tech companies in the consumer sphere. Our grandchildren will look at us the same way we look at medieval societies.

[–] ShroOmeric@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Bless your mouth. I hope you're right.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm really worried about what will happen when a paradigm-changing technology is in the hands of a precious few. The last few times went alright. But will this time be different?

[–] markr@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

The last time was social media, and that hasn't has benefited anyone except the shithead billionaires who got rich off of it. Social media is an astounding disaster.