Troy - I appreciate you very much but you really should look at some data about attitudes toward AI. It is the one issue people on the left and right agree on in the US. You sound out of touch and like you are high on your own supply. Please, read a range of survey data on this topic!
I am not saying sentiment is not negative. Seems obvious that it would be. Capital owners and technical enthusiasts are optimistic. The rest of the people are wondering what’s in it for them other than gnawing uncertainty, despite the fact that the American economy has been remarkably resilient.
IMO the present is unsustainable. Europe is careening toward economic stagnancy at best. China is rising. Technology has strained social fabric.
The Ai race is unstoppable and it is vitally important that America leads the way. I want to contemplate all the ways we make the technology a positive, understanding that there will be huge negative sentiment along the way and nasty disruption as the change is absorbed.
American leadership is preferred over Chinese because there’s an assumption of free speech, free markets and institutional authority. But if that’s the choice, there has to be an ability to regulate information networks so we can distinguish between truth and fiction. And America is no where near capable of that. So your point assumes that markets will do what the government should - regulate information technologies and put in place systems or solutions that avoid chaos. This seems quite naive.
Troy, you hit the nail on the head (even if you don't want to acknowledge it) about why so many people are reacting negatively toward AI — its rise absolutely does "seem" to correspond to the rise of the oligarch class. As you said, "it concentrates power in the hands of the few." That is a truism.
When AI starts to truly benefit a much larger swath of the populous (and not just as consumers or as workers but enabling them to take a much bigger piece of the economic pie) then we will see a more positive outlook. As it stands now, the options for entry into a comfortable life (owning a home, going on vacations with your family, owning a nice car, paying for your kids' education, having access to affordable healthcare etc etc) looks to be either a) try to join the shareholder class, b) grovel at the feet of silicon valley either as an employee or a hanger-on of the Peter Thiel's of the world, c) gamble your life away, or d) join the "permanent underclass."
While I appreciate (and in some respects share) your optimism for AI, until the wealth that it might be creating is spread beyond the top tier of the Mag 7 and their shareholders and the VCs trolling Sand Hill Road in a significant, realistic way (I'm talking "comfortable" existences, not suggesting everyone needs to be a millionaire) that offers more individuals autonomy and allows for the choices to attain that autonomy to exist outside of the sad four options outlined above, we will continue to see a major backlash. As we should. Who wants to live in a one industry country? That's not fun.
So we are roughly aligned. The “oligarchs” will say everything gonna be alright because we will have abundance. This may be true but they will own the abundance machines and with that an uncomfortable amount of political and economic leverage. This will undoubtedly require policy solutions. There is a path I think.
You can never regulate truth into the networks. Unless you are the Chinese government. Their truth. Move there you might like it better.
Troy - I appreciate you very much but you really should look at some data about attitudes toward AI. It is the one issue people on the left and right agree on in the US. You sound out of touch and like you are high on your own supply. Please, read a range of survey data on this topic!
I am not saying sentiment is not negative. Seems obvious that it would be. Capital owners and technical enthusiasts are optimistic. The rest of the people are wondering what’s in it for them other than gnawing uncertainty, despite the fact that the American economy has been remarkably resilient.
IMO the present is unsustainable. Europe is careening toward economic stagnancy at best. China is rising. Technology has strained social fabric.
The Ai race is unstoppable and it is vitally important that America leads the way. I want to contemplate all the ways we make the technology a positive, understanding that there will be huge negative sentiment along the way and nasty disruption as the change is absorbed.
American leadership is preferred over Chinese because there’s an assumption of free speech, free markets and institutional authority. But if that’s the choice, there has to be an ability to regulate information networks so we can distinguish between truth and fiction. And America is no where near capable of that. So your point assumes that markets will do what the government should - regulate information technologies and put in place systems or solutions that avoid chaos. This seems quite naive.
Troy, you hit the nail on the head (even if you don't want to acknowledge it) about why so many people are reacting negatively toward AI — its rise absolutely does "seem" to correspond to the rise of the oligarch class. As you said, "it concentrates power in the hands of the few." That is a truism.
When AI starts to truly benefit a much larger swath of the populous (and not just as consumers or as workers but enabling them to take a much bigger piece of the economic pie) then we will see a more positive outlook. As it stands now, the options for entry into a comfortable life (owning a home, going on vacations with your family, owning a nice car, paying for your kids' education, having access to affordable healthcare etc etc) looks to be either a) try to join the shareholder class, b) grovel at the feet of silicon valley either as an employee or a hanger-on of the Peter Thiel's of the world, c) gamble your life away, or d) join the "permanent underclass."
While I appreciate (and in some respects share) your optimism for AI, until the wealth that it might be creating is spread beyond the top tier of the Mag 7 and their shareholders and the VCs trolling Sand Hill Road in a significant, realistic way (I'm talking "comfortable" existences, not suggesting everyone needs to be a millionaire) that offers more individuals autonomy and allows for the choices to attain that autonomy to exist outside of the sad four options outlined above, we will continue to see a major backlash. As we should. Who wants to live in a one industry country? That's not fun.
So we are roughly aligned. The “oligarchs” will say everything gonna be alright because we will have abundance. This may be true but they will own the abundance machines and with that an uncomfortable amount of political and economic leverage. This will undoubtedly require policy solutions. There is a path I think.