I never understood this perspective. Just because a person's behavior is market-rational, it does not mean they can't be criticized for externalities.

That is, in fact, an important thing to do. It turns those externalities into public perception, which turns into market forces that adjust the behavior, if you want to think purely in market terms.

The analogy with Budweiser is not a good one. This would be the CEO of Budweiser actively pushing more drinking while the nation's drinking was increasing. And yes, people would be right, and effective, to oppose this (see Oxycontin).

▲

pjc50 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> can't be criticized for externalities

As soon as you open up the externalities discussion, the wider question of increasing electricity prices and turbocharging global warming comes up, not to mention RAM prices. AI is a machine for turning negative externalities into stock prices.

▲

nixon_why69 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course they can be criticized, we can criticize the ExxonMobil CEO the same way and get nowhere

The point is, blaming them is pointless, if it wasn't them it would be someone else. How do we react?

▲

Avicebron 4 hours ago | parent [-]

"If it's not them it would be someone else" probably should just be shorthanded to the banality of evil. But to answer your question, idk, sensible regulations? (Knowing full well this just kicks the buck of responsibility down the chain)

	▲	nixon_why69 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For AI overdependence specifically, continuing to be a thinking human is resistance. Eventually the pendulum swings, you can't outhype reality forever. People will have outages where nobody human can explain why and the orgs/people who maintained understanding will survive better.