OldWorldRevival

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j1sjidl wrote

Industrialization and technological progress has tended to worsen inequality - that is a trend that optimists really need to pay attention to and get ahead of.

It may very well be that in 2050, it might be very hard to actually find any land for yourself.

It's also quite the assumption to assume that people will leave earth. And, it would be an incredible tragedy if staying on earth and having land was something that was essentially for the elite, which it could be in a post-singularity world.

Like, you have to think about land-ownership and how it has gone. As our population has grown and our economy has grown, the price of land has gone up, a lot. But, this is largely due to an asymmetric distribution of resources.

Zoning laws also still exist.

Thinking that we can't get ahead on some of these things is a bit too low-resolution of a viewpoint. AGI is going to make huge strides in asymmetric ways as well. So, it'll be very good at some things, but we'll still need human verification for lots of things for a good while, such as laws, engineering designs, etc.

3

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j1shu9x wrote

I think you're too threatened by what I say.

I am soon going to own some land of myself and my family actually has a lot of land, so please don't take it as a threat.

I'm actually more concerned about billionaires buying up endless acres of farmland, pricing people out of being able to establish on their own, turning farming into indentured servitude as a profession in the modern era.

So, progressive tax on land ownership... so if you own less than 500 acres, your tax would be low. If you own a few acres or less, your tax should be zero.

If you own 1,000,000 acres? You'd be taxed more, according to the value of the land.

That's the concept.

4

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j1eueuv wrote

Oh well.

I tried to bring some nuance to this subreddit.

This is the problem with reddit. It dumbs everything down.

It's far too popular of a site to be allowed to be run the way that it is.... FFS.

I.e. its too easy to downvote. You should have to comment first. And, all upvotes and downvotes should be shown, and downvotes shouldn't necessarily count against posts rising to the top.

−3

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j1esvll wrote

> They are quite literally enabling corporate capture of emerging technologies at a critical point.

You're enabling it far more by setting the bar at zero for allowing companies to have very shady terms of use.

Don't tell me you read every terms of use agreement........ Lol.

What we need are terms of use regulations. But, you're standing in the way of that too and don't seem to think it's important, so you might as well accept your future of corporate slavery.

−3

OldWorldRevival t1_j14pqic wrote

The thing is that AI actually vastly outstrips us in narrow problems.

I think that element of it will drive us to AGI sooner than later. That is, much of what AI is already good at should help reel in a lot of the technical AGI problems.

I.e. mapping neurons, mapping complex patterns between neurons and emulating that behavior more robustly.

I think that whatever problems that remain over the horizon, there's a sort of exponential space that we are now in where those unknowns will quickly be reeled in.

It's the nature of information technology itself. I.e. most math was discovered in the past 300 years compared to 10000 years of civilization.

Now our population is massive, which means that the talent pool is also significantly larger. It's inevitable that it will happen relatively soon, in my view, when those things are considered.

18

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0v67f1 wrote

Artists don't necessarily hate AI... they rightly hate their work being exploited.

Getting the ethics of AI art ironed out includes protecting artists' work from being used in these tools, and secondly, making it known when a piece of art is AI generated.

A key difference between AI and photography is that you know a photo is a photo and a painting is a painting. AI image generators are a totally new paradigm.

The fact that it obscures the nature of the image is problematic, and tools that identify AI art will become increasingly necessary to preserve the knowledge that something is authentic human work.

1

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0uszvp wrote

Yea... I have taken a bit of an issue with the idea that open source intrinsically makes something good. If I open sourced biotechnology that allows you to create a supervirus, that would be mostly just absolutely terrible.

Mainly in that I find a lot of people don't actually appreciate others' hard work and passion, and then they take that work for granted as well.

People want things like communism and shared labor, but then they fail to actually stand up for other people's hard work and them being justly rewarded for their contribution. And hence, because of that failure, we have exploitative capitalism. Capitalists and communists are both philosophies that stem from selfishness and an unwillingness to stand up for goodness itself, for all.

In this case, the AI art "scrape everyones data" proponents have ZERO appreciation for the hard work, dedication and sacrifice, and because they found a new copyright loophole tool, they're fine using artists work against them.

It's simple naiveté at best, and it's rotten exploitation at worst.

1

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0stv3m wrote

Ok communist.

Anyone who does work means thar you're entitled to benefit from your labor, no matter how little means they have, then.

What an asinine argument. You obviously have a callous heart and are willing to take hard work from people so that your fancy tool can be 2% better.

And the irony is the backlash from people like you being so mindless about it is what will actually slow it down.

So, you're an asshole and you're slowing progress. Congrats.

1

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0sf9ip wrote

> Stable Diffusion AI doesn't scrape anything. It studies a billion images as visual ideas to produce one image using fractal mathematics. It's nothing at all like scraping and every image it produces is new and not like anything else because it starts as noise at its base.

False.

To train the AI, data was scraped. The AI itself does not scrape data, but lots of private data was scraped without consent.

1