Really nice post! I've been study AI HW through first principles and the technology itself is interesting, but I never really thought about the public perception until now.
It seems like the emergence of AI is exactly the same pattern you see when the discovery of fossil fuels and machinery greatly enhanced human productivity. You have the robber barons owning the means of production and exploiting people in general with low wages, child labor, etc, where the government eventually steps in and regulates.
Nowadays, AI is really just amplifying the already existing tendencies of greed and short term thinking amongst CEOs who view it as an efficiency enhancer and resort to narrow tactics to enhance it (layoffs) without understanding the broad social impact.
To me, its worth learning the patterns throughout history like this where humanity acquires a productivity enhancing tool and the impact its had, because mistakes seem to repeat themselves by people who don't understand them.
I hearted the Alberto Romero post on how the U.S. turned against AI. That's praise for his work, not for what his work reveals. The about-face among Americans is distressing, to say the least. AI is revolutionary and therefore disruptive. I understood that. But to see such an overwhelming response to the reality that of AI is shocking, even if it was expected.
NIMBY fear of data centers is now firmly established. We can expect the pace of development to slow considerably. Psychological fear of job competition is even more established. Romero compares it to the fear of nuclear power generation and finds that AI is more threatening than Three Mile Island ever was. That fear isn't going to go away. The so-called Frontier companies are going to be vilified, and their leaders should probably tighten their personal security practices, lest the fate that befell the United Healthcare exec befalls them. It will be interesting to see what happens to the IPO tech stock offerings on the horizon.
Reading about the Luddite movement 225 years ago doesn't offer any hope for the immediate future. There was considerable unrest for several years as weavers who worked in the pleasant surroundings of their own homes in what are called "cottage industries." The weavers burned thousands of power looms and intimidated, beat, or killed the owners of fabric mills that produced cloth far more cheaply and quickly than the hand weavers. The most violent offenders against progress were eventually hanged, but for a time, change stood still in England. Eventually, civic order was restored, and the Luddites gave up. But the spirit of the movement and the emotional belief that bells could be unrung gave rise to a broader hatred of the factory system and industrialization. We are still fighting those battles today.
I am reminded of a Christopher Nolan movie now out of date. Interstellar was the dramatic creation of a world in which exploration of space had to be conducted in secret because society found itself caught up in an hysterical environmental reaction that made the future of the human race seem like it was on a dead-end street.
It's time for some soul-searching by the tech bros and serious discussions among all citizens about what is and isn't artificial about this new technology. As usual, I find myself holding the short end of the stick, but that's okay. I owe it to my conscience to stand for revolutionary change because universal stasis will lead to much worse outcomes. America seems to have a corner on this reactionary impulse. The rest of the world seems to be taking to AI with great glee. That includes our worst enemies. So perhaps we are only reaping the whirlwind of our own success. That's too bad, but it's not the first time the majority has been wrong.
Really nice post! I've been study AI HW through first principles and the technology itself is interesting, but I never really thought about the public perception until now.
It seems like the emergence of AI is exactly the same pattern you see when the discovery of fossil fuels and machinery greatly enhanced human productivity. You have the robber barons owning the means of production and exploiting people in general with low wages, child labor, etc, where the government eventually steps in and regulates.
Nowadays, AI is really just amplifying the already existing tendencies of greed and short term thinking amongst CEOs who view it as an efficiency enhancer and resort to narrow tactics to enhance it (layoffs) without understanding the broad social impact.
To me, its worth learning the patterns throughout history like this where humanity acquires a productivity enhancing tool and the impact its had, because mistakes seem to repeat themselves by people who don't understand them.
I hearted the Alberto Romero post on how the U.S. turned against AI. That's praise for his work, not for what his work reveals. The about-face among Americans is distressing, to say the least. AI is revolutionary and therefore disruptive. I understood that. But to see such an overwhelming response to the reality that of AI is shocking, even if it was expected.
NIMBY fear of data centers is now firmly established. We can expect the pace of development to slow considerably. Psychological fear of job competition is even more established. Romero compares it to the fear of nuclear power generation and finds that AI is more threatening than Three Mile Island ever was. That fear isn't going to go away. The so-called Frontier companies are going to be vilified, and their leaders should probably tighten their personal security practices, lest the fate that befell the United Healthcare exec befalls them. It will be interesting to see what happens to the IPO tech stock offerings on the horizon.
Reading about the Luddite movement 225 years ago doesn't offer any hope for the immediate future. There was considerable unrest for several years as weavers who worked in the pleasant surroundings of their own homes in what are called "cottage industries." The weavers burned thousands of power looms and intimidated, beat, or killed the owners of fabric mills that produced cloth far more cheaply and quickly than the hand weavers. The most violent offenders against progress were eventually hanged, but for a time, change stood still in England. Eventually, civic order was restored, and the Luddites gave up. But the spirit of the movement and the emotional belief that bells could be unrung gave rise to a broader hatred of the factory system and industrialization. We are still fighting those battles today.
I am reminded of a Christopher Nolan movie now out of date. Interstellar was the dramatic creation of a world in which exploration of space had to be conducted in secret because society found itself caught up in an hysterical environmental reaction that made the future of the human race seem like it was on a dead-end street.
It's time for some soul-searching by the tech bros and serious discussions among all citizens about what is and isn't artificial about this new technology. As usual, I find myself holding the short end of the stick, but that's okay. I owe it to my conscience to stand for revolutionary change because universal stasis will lead to much worse outcomes. America seems to have a corner on this reactionary impulse. The rest of the world seems to be taking to AI with great glee. That includes our worst enemies. So perhaps we are only reaping the whirlwind of our own success. That's too bad, but it's not the first time the majority has been wrong.
From the essay:
"Americans have soured on AI datacenters, on AI itself, and on the people building it."
Datacenters are intrusive.
AI is Average Intelligence (except no Intelligence); How about Average Insipidity?
The people building it are goof balls.