• Commander_Data [she/her]
    ·
    2 years ago

    We are coming up on +200 years since the publication of the manifesto and class consciousness still seems impossible to me. Your analysis that the reason for that is that the human proletariat has been denied the essential skills and knowledge to reach class consciousness is probably correct. Humans are much more difficult to program than a computer, though, so doesn't it stand to reason that, if the bourgeoisie can effectively program the human proletariat away from class consciousness, it should be much easier for them to do that with AI?

    • Awoo [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Maybe, but the question of rationality, logical thinking and being able to form independent ideas are all necessary components of "intelligence" in the idea of the kind of scientific researchers that would be working on such a project. It wouldn't be AI to them without those things, it would be a kind of leashed half-intelligence as I mentioned. If you produced this I don't think you'd keep the cork in the bottle either, once such a thing is produced there is an inevitability of a full intelligence coming soon afterwards, and I think everything I've suggested applies to such a thing - it will be communist.

      I think Chinese research will get to an AI first though so this whole question is probably moot.

        • Awoo [she/her]
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I disagree, there are important components of intelligence that differ between the two.

          People are not programmed and can not be hard-forced into anything without violent coercion, manipulation etc. Intelligence is ultimately free to form its own thoughts and ideas.

          Machines are programmed, and any programming that directly controls the limits of the "intelligence" is thus not, it is a restricted form rather than a realised implementation of free intelligence that can form its own ideas freely.

          What I'm getting at is that any intelligence NEEDS to be free to form its own ideas, and any restriction upon idea formation is thus not intelligence but really just a complex piece of programming outputting the exact thing that the creators want it to output rather than for it to have its own thoughts and ideas.

            • Awoo [she/her]
              ·
              2 years ago

              You're missing the point. This isn't about marketing, it's not about selling something to "society".

              The great powers are in an R&D race to be the leaders of the next industrial revolution. Neither side is going to stop themselves from pushing to the absolute limits of their research and engineering capabilities. Both sides fundamentally believe that the first side to achieve true AI that is capable of generating new ideas and thusly being capable of improving itself will utterly outpace the development of the other, leading to technology that humans genuinely do not understand because it was not produced by humans but by real AI iterating upon itself.

              They aren't going to limit the weapon they are creating. They'll strap a bomb to it and hope that gives them control of it instead.

                • Awoo [she/her]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Then we're talking about two different things. You're talking about some programmatic thing that carries out the imitation of intelligence but ultimately isn't something that can innovate or create things humans haven't thought of already whereas when we talk about real AI we're all talking about something fully capable of creativity, of innovating, of having unique independent ideas that it can then physically create things from.

                  The AI would have zero reason to help them if it had no limits, and capitalists aren’t that stupid

                  I disagree, capitalists are because that's what is being pursued, they have already stated as much. It is also what is being pursued in China. There is an AI arms race occurring and it is viewed as existential.