Skip to main content

Home/ History Readings/ Group items tagged supply-side

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Javier E

Regular Old Intelligence is Sufficient--Even Lovely - 0 views

billmckibben.substack.com/...old-intelligence-is-sufficient

ai control why benefits evaluation human crisis

shared by Javier E on 02 Apr 23 - No Cached
  • Ezra Klein, has done some of the most dedicated reporting on the topic since he moved to the Bay Area a few years ago, talking with many of the people creating this new technology.
  • one is that the people building these systems have only a limited sense of what’s actually happening inside the black box—the bot is doing endless calculations instantaneously, but not in a way even their inventors can actually follow
  • an obvious question, one Klein has asked: “’If you think calamity so possible, why do this at all?
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • second, the people inventing them think they are potentially incredibly dangerous: ten percent of them, in fact, think they might extinguish the human species. They don’t know exactly how, but think Sorcerer’s Apprentice (or google ‘paper clip maximizer.’)
  • One pundit after another explains that an AI program called Deep Mind worked far faster than scientists doing experiments to uncover the basic structure of all the different proteins, which will allow quicker drug development. It’s regarded as ipso facto better because it’s faster, and hence—implicitly—worth taking the risks that come with AI.
  • That is, it seems to me, a dumb answer from smart people—the answer not of people who have thought hard about ethics or even outcomes, but the answer that would be supplied by a kind of cultist.
  • (Probably the kind with stock options).
  • it does go, fairly neatly, with the default modern assumption that if we can do something we should do it, which is what I want to talk about. The question that I think very few have bothered to answer is, why?
  • But why? The sun won’t blow up for a few billion years, meaning that if we don’t manage to drive ourselves to extinction, we’ve got all the time in the world. If it takes a generation or two for normal intelligence to come up with the structure of all the proteins, some people may die because a drug isn’t developed in time for their particular disease, but erring on the side of avoiding extinction seems mathematically sound
  • Allowing that we’re already good enough—indeed that our limitations are intrinsic to us, define us, and make us human—should guide us towards trying to shut down this technology before it does deep damage.
  • The other challenge that people cite, over and over again, to justify running the risks of AI is to “combat climate change,
  • As it happens, regular old intelligence has already give us most of what we need: engineers have cut the cost of solar power and windpower and the batteries to store the energy they produce so dramatically that they’re now the cheapest power on earth
  • We don’t actually need artificial intelligence in this case; we need natural compassion, so that we work with the necessary speed to deploy these technologies.
  • Beyond those, the cases become trivial, or worse
  • All of this is a way of saying something we don’t say as often as we should: humans are good enough. We don’t require improvement. We can solve the challenges we face, as humans.
  • It may take us longer than if we can employ some “new form of intelligence,” but slow and steady is the whole point of the race.
  • Unless, of course, you’re trying to make money, in which case “first-mover advantage” is the point
  • I find they often answer from something that sounds like the A.I.’s perspective. Many — not all, but enough that I feel comfortable in this characterization — feel that they have a responsibility to usher this new form of intelligence into the world.”
  • here’s the thing: pausing, slowing down, stopping calls on the one human gift shared by no other creature, and perhaps by no machine. We are the animal that can, if we want to, decide not to do something we’re capable of doing.
  • n individual terms, that ability forms the core of our ethical and religious systems; in societal terms it’s been crucial as technology has developed over the last century. We’ve, so far, reined in nuclear and biological weapons, designer babies, and a few other maximally dangerous new inventions
  • It’s time to say do it again, and fast—faster than the next iteration of this tech.
Javier E

Working from home and the US-Europe divide - 0 views

www.economist.com/...-home-and-the-us-europe-divide

leisure US Europe culture policy economics

shared by Javier E on 04 May 24 - No Cached
  • there is one explanation that seems almost too simplistic: that “Americans just work harder”,
  • The numbers do in fact bear out this assertion—a rare case of national stereotypes being empirically provable
  • On average Americans work 1,811 hours per year, according to data from the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries. That is 15% more than in the EU, where the average is 1,571 hours
  • ...26 more annotations...
  • it is not just that Europeans spend a few extra weeks on the beach. The typical working day in Britain, France and Germany is half an hour shorter than in America, according to the International Labour Organisation.
  • which is the better way of living—with more money or more free time? The reality is that it is difficult for people to choose
  • Those in America work according to American schedules; those in Europe conform to European norms.
  • the more fruitful question is why Americans put in longer hours
  • The answer leads to a curious new observation: that remote work is making America’s office drones a little more European, albeit with a puritanical twist.
  • A first guess suggests that culture might account for the variation in work hours. Maybe Europeans enjoy their leisure more. They are spoilt for choice about how to spend time off
  • As for Americans, surveys indicate that they view hard work as intrinsically worthwhile. “Rugged individualism” is, after all, what built the country.
  • the difficulty with chalking up the difference to culture is that until the early 1970s many Europeans worked more
  • American working hours are basically the same now as back then. The big change is that Europeans now toil less. Hours are down a whopping 30% in Germany over the past half-century. Something beyond culture—a slow-moving, ill-defined variable—is at play.
  • Edward Prescott, an American economist, came to a provocative conclusion, arguing that the key was taxation
  • Until the early 1970s tax levels were similar in America and Europe, and so were hours worked. By the early 1990s Europe’s taxes had become more burdensome and, in Prescott’s view, its employees less motivated
  • A substantial gap persists today: American tax revenue is 28% of GDP, compared with 40% or so in Europe.
  • A recent study by Jósef Sigurdsson of Stockholm University examined how Icelandic workers responded to a one-year income-tax holiday in 1987, when the country overhauled its tax system. Although people with more flexibility—especially younger ones in part-time jobs—did indeed put in more hours, the overall increase in work was modest relative to that implied by Prescott’s model.
  • Regulation seems to matter more.
  • European rules give workers power, from generous parental-leave policies to stricter laws on firing staff. Many European countries try to put caps on working tim
  • most research agrees that they have reduced work hours.
  • Another important relationship is that, as people get richer, they typically want to work less
  • A recent paper by the IMF shows a remarkably strong link between GDP per person and hours worked in Europe. People in richer countries, such as the Netherlands, generally work less than those in poorer countries, such as Bulgaria.
  • Americans are wealthier than most Europeans, so why do they still work more?
  • Perhaps leisure is a collective-action problem. Americans may want to ask their bosses for longer holidays but are worried about being seen as slackers
  • A paper in 2005 by Alberto Alesina of Harvard University and colleagues argued that Europe’s stronger unions had in effect solved this collective-action problem by fighting for paid vacations, which ended up enshrined in law.
  • Europe’s well-regulated leisure time may then beget more leisure because it is more socially acceptable, and the market responds by supplying more good ways not to work. It is a virtuous cycle of lovely cafés.
  • One fascinating new development is a discrepancy in the rise of remote work
  • In 2023 the Global Survey of Working Arrangements found that full-time employees in America work from home 1.4 days a week, while those in Europe do so for 0.8 days
  • a striking result: Europeans and Americans now spend almost exactly the same amount of time in the office, with 1,320 hours a year for the former and 1,304 for the latter.
  • In other words, the extra 15% of work done by Americans annually is now from the comfort of their own homes—or occasionally on the beach, perhaps even one in Europe. Americans do still work harder, but rather more enjoyably than in the past
Javier E

There's Probably Nothing We Can Do About This Awful Deepfake Porn Problem - 0 views

freddiedeboer.substack.com/...res-probably-nothing-we-can-do

internet censorship screening tech constraints wish

shared by Javier E on 03 Feb 24 - No Cached
  • we can’t (as in, are unable to in real-world terms) censor far-right content online because of the basic reality of modern communications technology. The internet makes the transmission of information, no matter how ugly or shocking or secret, functionally impossible to stop. Digital infrastructure is spread out across the globe, including in regimes that do not play ball with American legal or corporate mandates, and there’s plenty of server racks out there in the world buzzing along that are inaccessible to even the most dedicated hall monitors
  • , it happens that I am one of those free speech absolutists, yes, but that is very explicitly not what the piece argues - it’s precisely an argument that whether we should censor is entirely moot, because we can’t. The technological impediments to cutting off the flow of information (at least that which is not tightly controlled at the supply-side) are now existential.
  • This is a reality people have to accept, even if - especially if - they think that reality is corrosive and ugly. I suspect it’s a similar story with all of this horrible AI “deepfake” celebrity porn.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • The trouble is that, as I’ve seen again and again, in this era of entitlement people think saying “we can’t do this” necessarily means “I don’t want to.”
« First ‹ Previous 101 - 103 of 103
Showing 20▼ items per page