The cost/benefit ratio always comes out inverted with respect to the public in a fascist government, whether it be the railroads, the Industrial Revolution, the use of much of our scientific research, the Internet and AI. We can argue day and night about who owns what and who pays for that. We can debate AI job losses, modernization of society, and AI misuse all day and all night. But to get down to brass tacks we need to take a hard long look at the characters who brought us to this point… Musk, Theil, Luckey, Altman, Zuckerberg etc. Ask yourself-what motivates these dudes… then you will begin to see the real problems with AI.
When Trump boasts of increasing his family wealth through bit coin investment, or when he accepts an aircraft gift from a gulf state he sends a loud message that corrupt influence does not apply to him. The results of the January 6 Committee were ignored. His actions and language are clear that he believes he is "above" other Americans and rule of law does not apply to him. I blame the Democratic Party for allowing such lawless conduct. I understand that my vote as a citizen can stop this nightmare POTUS, but shouldn't there be a process by the hundreds of attorneys in the Democratic Party to challenge and oppose such sweeping graft?
Other than "amen!" I have a few things to add. Basic questions arise, like: What is the purpose of a data center? Who owns it, pays for its operation, maintenance and removal when it has outlived its usefulness? Can its use of energy and water be afforded? Can its operation be made less noisy? Can clean, renewable energy rather than polluting fossil fuels power them? Can any substance besides water be used to cool it? About seven percent of the world's water is potable, clean enough to be used for AI. This water is limited, like all natural resources, and human needs must come first. Overfishing has caused many parts of the fish population to shrink so seriously that international laws attempt to limit the harvesting of certain species. Given this one example among many that I can think of, can any organization discuss how many data centers should serve a given area, and who would set limits to the number of data centers in any area? Asking hard questions should be part of any human activity. Do deciders agree that there are certain aboslute basics people need, like sufficient food, water, shelter and public controls for health and safety?
This is the most useful and helpful discussion I have read so far about Artificial Intelligence and its development in this country. Clearly, there are and will be efforts all over the world to develop this as quickly as possible, but not at the risk of making major mistakes-this is true within our country as throughout the world. It is a transformative knowledge/tool, much like railroads were in its time, that has the potential to create great wealth, and therefore competition. It is crucial that we maintain the goal is to advance all of us, and improve conditions for all, and that we not sacrifice our goals of keeping people fed, educated, and healthy.
Well, I'm afraid that we, as humanity, have already missed the opportunity to develop AI within reasonable limits. And unfortunately, history shows that it is impossible to fully control these forces. And surely the developers are also intoxicated by their ideas of unbridled advancement.
The cost/benefit ratio always comes out inverted with respect to the public in a fascist government, whether it be the railroads, the Industrial Revolution, the use of much of our scientific research, the Internet and AI. We can argue day and night about who owns what and who pays for that. We can debate AI job losses, modernization of society, and AI misuse all day and all night. But to get down to brass tacks we need to take a hard long look at the characters who brought us to this point… Musk, Theil, Luckey, Altman, Zuckerberg etc. Ask yourself-what motivates these dudes… then you will begin to see the real problems with AI.
When Trump boasts of increasing his family wealth through bit coin investment, or when he accepts an aircraft gift from a gulf state he sends a loud message that corrupt influence does not apply to him. The results of the January 6 Committee were ignored. His actions and language are clear that he believes he is "above" other Americans and rule of law does not apply to him. I blame the Democratic Party for allowing such lawless conduct. I understand that my vote as a citizen can stop this nightmare POTUS, but shouldn't there be a process by the hundreds of attorneys in the Democratic Party to challenge and oppose such sweeping graft?
Other than "amen!" I have a few things to add. Basic questions arise, like: What is the purpose of a data center? Who owns it, pays for its operation, maintenance and removal when it has outlived its usefulness? Can its use of energy and water be afforded? Can its operation be made less noisy? Can clean, renewable energy rather than polluting fossil fuels power them? Can any substance besides water be used to cool it? About seven percent of the world's water is potable, clean enough to be used for AI. This water is limited, like all natural resources, and human needs must come first. Overfishing has caused many parts of the fish population to shrink so seriously that international laws attempt to limit the harvesting of certain species. Given this one example among many that I can think of, can any organization discuss how many data centers should serve a given area, and who would set limits to the number of data centers in any area? Asking hard questions should be part of any human activity. Do deciders agree that there are certain aboslute basics people need, like sufficient food, water, shelter and public controls for health and safety?
This is the most useful and helpful discussion I have read so far about Artificial Intelligence and its development in this country. Clearly, there are and will be efforts all over the world to develop this as quickly as possible, but not at the risk of making major mistakes-this is true within our country as throughout the world. It is a transformative knowledge/tool, much like railroads were in its time, that has the potential to create great wealth, and therefore competition. It is crucial that we maintain the goal is to advance all of us, and improve conditions for all, and that we not sacrifice our goals of keeping people fed, educated, and healthy.
Well, I'm afraid that we, as humanity, have already missed the opportunity to develop AI within reasonable limits. And unfortunately, history shows that it is impossible to fully control these forces. And surely the developers are also intoxicated by their ideas of unbridled advancement.