| ▲ | dale_glass 6 hours ago |
| > The solution is exactly what the linked article says: shut it down. At this point it's impossible, so I concur with the parent: forget about the shutting it down and think of something actually realistic. |
|
| ▲ | miyoji 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This response is incredibly annoying and insufferable. It's only "impossible" at this point because people continually ignored skeptics and anyone warning about exactly these outcomes. Now that doom is here, it's too late to do anything about it. Just accept the doom! |
| |
| ▲ | dale_glass 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The critics didn't do themselves any favors. Part think the Terminator has something useful to say on the subject, part invent contrived scenarios like self-driving cars having to resolve trolley problems. Reality turned out to be much more boring. But yes, what you said but unironically. Like it or not it's here, it's not going away, so all the remaining options have to assume that. | | |
| ▲ | miyoji 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The critics didn't do themselves any favors. Part think the Terminator has something useful to say on the subject, part invent contrived scenarios like self-driving cars having to resolve trolley problems. Reality turned out to be much more boring. You do very well in battles against straw men. | | |
| ▲ | dale_glass 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm referring to actual people I argued with in the past. People convinced that AI in a self-driving car would involve the car calculating whether to kill a pedestrian or the driver, rather than trying to figure out whether this thing half obscured by foliage is a speed limit sign or not. Obviously that's not what everyone argues, my point is that there's a lot of chaff in such arguments and not much wheat. People make a lot of noise about dramatic but completely unrealistic scenarios, while ignoring the far more boring reality. The PauseAI people are for instance talking about human extinction, somehow. And not crappy GitHub PRs. | |
| ▲ | bcjdjsndon 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I guarantee you AI will not end the world | | |
| ▲ | shimman 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No one serious is arguing it will destroy the world (outside of LLM companies using these people as free marketing), the real critics argue that this is going to weaken labor while all the benefits go to the few capitalists and nothing ultimately improves in regards to society. Unless improvement for you means increase cancer rates, exacerbating the climate crisis, or using poor systems to kill school children in wars. All outcomes humans with souls typically want to avoid. | |
| ▲ | miyoji 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I never said it did, "doom" in this case is just "any negative consequences of AI", because anyone saying that AI could lead to negative consequences has been accused of "doomerism". My point is simply that the negative consequences are here right now, in the room with us, and AI boosters are still pretending that they don't exist. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | empath75 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Now that doom is here, it's too late to do anything about it. Just accept the doom! What doom? This is a mildly annoying problem that will likely be self correcting long term. | | |
| ▲ | shimman 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You need to get out of your SV big tech bubble and go attend your local planning board meeting, the vast majority of the public hates this technology. It's literally killing members in their community and ruining the ecology. The question we should ask is why a subset of humans are so gung-ho about this technology when all it's done is induced mass misery at even a greater scale. We all know the actual answer to this: they want more money even if the costs is more societal misery. Be careful tho, we already know people are willing to commit violence and if it's one thing you can count on in the USA is when economic conditions worsen more people become desperate. That desperation leads to pretty extreme reactions, and these reactions are typically adored by the public writ large too (see the public's Luigi reactions). Quite the powder keg and I don't think SV realizes the potential backlash that they are brewing themselves. |
| |
| ▲ | ToucanLoucan 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | My only objection is calling it doom. It isn't and calling it that gives this stupid shit used by low-effort people far, far too much credit. It's just slop. But it does suck, you know? Part of what makes OSS so great is that anyone could contribute. If someone uses a thing, and finds something broken or a way to make it better, they could do that and then push it back up to the project and ideally have it merged so everyone can use it. That's what makes it awesome. The project benefits, the maintainer benefits, the coder benefits, the users benefit. Now we have to stop that because lazy people can't stop shitting it up with generated PRs and trying to get money for not fucking doing anything. | | |
| ▲ | miyoji 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean, I was being a little hyperbolic and spitting back against people who claim that any criticism of AI is "doomerism", but I edited out the part of my comment that made that clear before posting. My bad. Although I do want to push back mildly. I think this situation is a bit worse than just "it sucks", and if you extrapolate out to a world where every institution that's like open source gets polluted by the same fundamental dynamics, it's not quite doom, but it's quite a bit worse than "it does suck". |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jcgrillo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > forget about the shutting it down and think of something actually realistic. Why is it not realistic? Small teams do excellent work. Keep your team small and trusted. Only accept contributions from your team, and people outside your team who are personally vouched for by someone on your team. It's like climbing mountains or sailing or any other type of inherently risky activity--you don't go out with people you don't trust. It's eminently possible, you just don't like the idea of it. |
| |
| ▲ | dale_glass 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's not shutting anything down, that's just being selective with what you accept, and everyone did that already to some extent. Even pre-AI it was obvious that contributions have to be vetted for a bunch of reasons. | | |
| ▲ | jcgrillo 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right, so the Github "open contributions" model where anyone can open an issue or a PR or otherwise waste a maintainer's time is broken. Fundamentally insecure under this type of attack. Now that the exploit is being used widely, and costing us immensely, we need to put a lid on it. If the only way to guarantee an AI bot (or its meatspace sock puppet) doesn't waste your time is to move to a "look but don't touch" model, then that's what we need to do. I think this would be a reasonable default: Public repos are read only except for contributors who have been given specific permission, and those permissions are granular e.g. in order of increasing damage potential: - comment on issue - create issue - comment on PR - create PR - run CI against PR - etc. In other words, shut it down. | | |
| |
| ▲ | bcjdjsndon 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's eminently possible, you just don't like the idea of it. Sounds like you can't accept AI is here to stay | | |
| ▲ | ToucanLoucan 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | "I shit on your floor, guess you have to get used to shit on your floor" No. You go out the door, and then I clean it up, and you don't get invited back. That's how that works. |
|
|
