I am cautiously and slightly unnervingly looking forward to the gradual and inevitable unification of language, images/video and audio in foundation models... They will be endowed with agency over originally human APIs: screen+keyboard/mouse in the digital realm and humanoid bodies in the physical realm. And gradually they will swap us out.
Pandora's Box has been opened.
As a society we can reject this technology. Reject automated artwork like Dall-E 2, reject automated literature, and so on. Reject technologies that replace the human mind instead of assisting it.
For example, if we refuse to pay for self-driving taxis on moral grounds (the same way we might refuse to eat factory-farmed chickens) society can make these businesses unprofitable.
In your opinion, would a social movement organized around this idea find traction?
I'm curious what you do in ML, because I also work professionally in the field, and see no relationship or even pathway between current ML research and practice and any sort of "AI" that would reduce or commoditize human intelligence. It's all just marketing hype. If we somehow get "I robot" style robots (the movie, not the book) that we're uncomfortable with, sure, let's have a social movement. As long as we're still talking about SGD (or similar) optimized neural networks, you're rebelling against an equation (with no actual applications that co-opt human intelligence). Personally I don't feel threatened, even if a neural network can draw Kermit the frog in different movie styles, or perform other cool tricks
We've seen similar movements at every major technological shift in human history. Some examples off the top of my head are certain types of Orthodox Jewish religions and the Amish. Even the term "sabotage" was from workers throwing their shoes ("sabos") into machines for fear of them losing their jobs [0].
There's been a steady stream of anarchists, luddites, neo-luddites and other extremists arguing against technology [1]. Ted Kacyznski famously killed scientists and academics for precisely that reason [2].
From what I can tell, the vast majority of people tend to accept the compromises of new technology and live with the drawbacks, making any anti-technology movement either short-lived or niche, especially the more extreme or repressive they become, but they do exist and continue to exist.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#Etymology
You can certainly reject whatever you want but don't fool yourself into thinking you're accomplishing anything.
I'm not worried about ML "art" or literature, those are curiosities and don't actually threaten to replace anything, people who expect them to are very optimistic about the progress of ML.
I am worried about ML replacing human judgement on the road, with weaponry, content moderation, law enforcement, and using it to do things that humans wouldn't have the resources to do. (i.e. a policeman on patrol in a neighborhood is fine, a police ML surveillance camera that identifies people and records everything they do in public is not)
They say things like: "I want to be served by a real human", while basically condemning people serving them to standing behind checkout counters all day in a very dehumanizing and unhealthy task.
These people are either getting their kicks out of subservience of other people, or what they actually want is to provide a living to working class people.
If whatever people need is provided by automation, then that is just great and we can increase more humane pursuits which aren't driven by profit.
Things like UBI and similar will solve the issue of our societies' wealth distributions being based on labor where labor is becoming less necessary.
That is highly preferable to defending continuations of the existing economic models which force people to toil their lives away in unimportant tasks.
I don't think you've explained why they're immoral. Is it because they displace low skill jobs (seems like a core consequence of technology) or because they're less safe than human drivers (likely temporarily so, with a net number of lives saved through continued use and adoption)?
The idea that peoples behavior can be controlled by a minority preaching a moral agenda is total fantasy. I promise you the silence from the crowd is because their mouthes are filled with affordable factory farmed chicken. Of the 8 billion people hailing a ride how many do you think would rather pay double and stand in the rain? Just you and a small handful of friends - and the irony is that people with your attitude have no place to go. Many closed doors in the future for you
I'm more interested in the question of who benefits from AI? If it just creates more concentration of wealth then the world may be worse off. If it benefits all humanity, then the world is better off. How do we get the latter instead of the former? It might come down to sensible tax codes enacted by well-functioning democracy. Or maybe we need to invent whole new economic systems.
All of these movements are pretty closely related - meant to be a parallel structure to the hypercommoditized mainstream.
They also have major problems, which I'm sure are mostly self-evident by now. If anyone's wondering what's wrong with ecovillages: they tend to be run by nutjobs who want to play emperor. They almost always devolve into Lord of the Flies style internal politics. It's a metaphor for every other populist movement like it.
So, coming up with a viable alternative will be very hard. I think it's worth pursuing though.
I don't think we can. If I secretly use my own DALLE2 clone to generate art and then pretend that I painted it, nobody can easily detect the difference.
Creativity rewards the creator. There is a pleasure in creating, thinking, & understanding that is entirely private. Nothing will ever change this. If you are an artist, or private philosopher, or tinkerer, or hacker, you know precisely what I am talking about. Nothing whatsoever in this world can ever change this. Some creatives do crave recognition and an audience (cue Spirit by Bauhaus) but not all. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are hidden masterpieces, hidden jewels of thought.
The fact that others, on the consuming end of creative works, also find pleasure is and has always been a side-effect. And not necessarily a positive side-effect. (Think of the 'commoditization' of art on the consuming side, as a means to signal social status (or as some would have it a means to launder money. ;)) Maybe once we have hack AI artist, we can finally be rid of hack artists (here is looking at you Andy). So, possibly a positive end on that score.
~
I've always found Frank Herbert's choice of words -- Butlerian Jihad -- to be right on the mark. There certainly will be a spiritual movement organized around opposing the notion that Human beings are merely meat machines. We love, we hate, we cry, we laugh, we know what joy means, we know how love feels.
Can your machines (or "machine off-spring") do that?
Rejecting AI-products might be an option for you, but it might not be an option for everyone. Not everyone will be able to.
Think of coal. Or car and factory emissions. We have alternative power sources now. There are welcome tides of change in the developed world.
But what about Bangladesh, or India?
Despite traditional situations being better, we have often seen, in many points of history, people opting for the new thing. Because it makes economical sense.
The Indian muslin was a better clothe. But most people couldn't buy them. Out came mass produced clothes from Manchester mills, and people drove in herds towards them. Many artisans starved to death. And for these poor people's choice, tens of thousands toiled in torture in Manchester mills. The people were simply poor.
Now, when there will be driverless cabs, when the price will be much cheaper, many people will opt for these. When it is 100 degrees outside everyday for a month, and you can marginally afford the driverless cab fitted with an AC but the human operated cab will be way out of your range, "resistance against AI" will go out of your head.
Or you are a passion boutique clothes owner. You could get small bank loans. No budget for hiring real models but enough for the AI one? What will you do?
Say you are a filmmaker. But you don't know the right cohort. You do not have a budget. But you can make a movie with an AI with reasonable man hours. Will you not want to see your ideas executed into a film? Or will you let it die.
(I predict a full-length "AAA" movie with only generative models with minimal human input- 80 hours/week of man hours- for 40 days will be possible within the next 16 years.)
See, only privileged people can opt for the more expensive option (like vegan only diet), and a vast majority of humanity will not even have that option.
Absolutely everything that is said about GAB.COM, is untrue. Look at the Wikipedia article. Yet the casual reader will believe it. Readers HERE will downvote this because they think GAB.COM is an "alt-right nazi site" with nothing more than what paid propaganda to refer to.
That is what will happen to you, if you try to counter an emerging industry.
YOU will be the one lied about. You have to be ready to weather that. Where will your revenue stream come from? Advertisers believe bought-and-paid-for lies as easily as anyone else will. They will not want to advertise.
Fee-based social media won't work (Too many "free" options), so you are stuck with donations...just like GAB.COM.
It's a good idea both ethically and morally, but the general public is evil and stupid. AI's already know this.
I don't see a lot of precedent for this. I actually can't think of one example where society has rejected a useful technology.
I believe that affluent people will pay more for artisinal/organic/human-created things. But the majority of the world without disposable income will choose cheaper over human. Even if human-made is better. Especially if AI-made is better.
It's true that AI will replace humans as the most powerful intelligence on earth. But it's a wave that there is no plausible way to stop. As long as there are groups that seek to gain economic or military advantage over each other, people will push this technology along. It's as much of an inevitability as any other stage of evolution.
Which is a good thing, value is fundamentally based of scarcity, by commoditizing human intelligence and creativity, people are just making it less scarce (by offering plentiful substitute - AI), so more affordable.
If it's not a global rejection then it won't work; some country or corporation will keep working and eventually achieve superhuman AGI.
Once superhuman AGI is achieved it will rapidly self-improve and be capable of strategizing effective ways to avoid being rejected.
So the most likely scenario for an AI rejection working is an "oops" where someone creates a near-human-level agent that begins the process of figuring out how to tell all the computers in the world that they should help improve the model by running code snippets included in oddly shaped packets, but gets it wrong and just crashes everything connected to the internet for a few weeks until we manage to re-flash to original firmware and reinstall from read-only optical media and begin to bring stuff back online.
All the other scenarios leave plenty of incentives for AI to keep progressing.
I think eventually there will be a backlash against this content because of how much it stunts human potential. It keeps you hooked, but people will also deride it for being empty, for being exceptionally "mid". People will question why such content appeals to the widest possible demographic and come up with disturbing answers, like that the AIs unintentionally discovered a lot of unsettling psychological hooks. True or not, it'll freak people out.
I haven't even scratched the surface of my worries when it comes to the unintended consequences of content AI. I for one look forward to the day someone manages to create "the world's smartest racist".
Until AI can get itself into a human body and experience human existence, I wouldn't worry too much about AI replacing human creativity.
Might want to call it the "Butlerian Jihad", because that's what it sounds like to me. And, yes, machines should serve man and amplify man's abilities, not replace man or his intellect.
Human creativity will diminish in value with or without AI, people are moving away from sweeping cultural changes and clever interpretations. People just want to look good and relate to ideas they like.
The tech is not in the drivers seat, it is just a facilitator made by our best minds. A moral movement "against" Dall E will be a futile attempt to call back horses bolted from the stables.
I'd even agree to it so long as someone is responsible for its decisions, someone died because your auto-taxi is buggy? Go to jail and pay for damages out the nose. You knew the risks, that's the price to play here.
Unprofitable doesn't mean undoable, it'll only delay things, not make them inevitable. Your investment profits can wait.
Is it possible for urban society to shift away from AI? No I don't think so. Is it possible for a NEW society to emerge that shifts away from AI? Yes, and that new society is already alive and growing.
Perhaps one day these two opposing societies will have to fight for supremacy, which sounds like an interesting scenario. Someone should write a book about that.
In the early twentieth century, coach driving professionals suddenly found themselves out of a job, having to switch careers and adapt. Some never recovered, but it was a net benefit for society.
Do you also want to bring back factory assembly line jobs?
Do you think “commoditization” of intelligence and creativity, whatever that means exactly, is a new phenomenon?
I am sure there will be some countries that slow things down.
If anything, we should be against AI being used for important stuff because most AI suck.
There are many, many people (myself included) who want to see black-box predictors banned unless they are doing something trivial and unimportant (and that's the goal of the GDPR and PIPL rules). So there's another group to align with, and this group has a lot of political clout at the moment.
Rejecting automated art is a slightly odd, but I presume there will be some group that would align with that too.
So it sounds like you can start building consensus with some other groups already, which is the kind of political power you will need in order to effect change.
That is, people are already organizing against AI as deployed to accelerate modes of domination, control exploitation: workers employed in dataset labeling — particularly displaced people — who are exploited by big tech; tenants rights organizations fighting against use of biometric technologies like facial recognition; those who are organizing to oppose mass serveillance; activists trying to address the use of AI in discriminatory lending, policing; Indigenous activists pushing back against impact of NLP on Native and “low resource” languages.
Marx talks briefly about the potential benefits and harms of automatons — ultimately it’s an issue of who gets to control the technology, does power rest in the hands of a few elites or are is it accountable to “everyday” people. You might find this article “The Nonmachinables” https://logicmag.io/distribution/the-nonmachinables/ relevant.
To sum up, a lot is happening and there’s a lot of potential solidarity if we look beyond the “ML engineer” class bubble.
For example: if there shouldn't be billionaires, why buy from Amazon rather than a local shop?
Perhaps the same level of consciousness and self reflection would be required here too.