Something I’ve been thinking about a lot in the current battle over the future of (pseudo) AI is the cotton gin.

I live in a country where industrial progress is always considered a positive. It’s such a fundamental concept to the American exceptionalism claim that we are taught never to question it, let alone realize that it’s propaganda.

One such myth, taught early in grade school, is the story of Eli Whitney and the cotton gin. Here was a classic example of a labor-saving device that made millions of lives better. No more overworked people hand cleaning the cotton (slaves, though that was only mentioned much later, if at all). Better clothes and bedding for the world. Capitalism at its best.

But that’s only half the story of this great industrial time saver. Where did those cotton cleaners go? And what was the impact of speeding up the process?

Now that the cleaning bottleneck was gone, the focus was on picking cotton as fast as possible. Those cotton cleaners likely, and millions of other slaves definitely, were sent to the fields to pick cotton. There was an unprecedented explosion in the slave trade. Industrial time management and optimization methods were applied to human beings using elaborate rule-based systems written up in books. How hard to punish to get optimal productivity. How long their lifespans needed to be to get the lost production per dollar. Those techniques, practiced on the backs and lives of slaves, became the basis of how to run the industrial mills in the North. They are the ancestors of the techniques that your manager uses now to improve productivity.

Millions of people were sold into slavery and worked to death *because* of the cotton gin. The advance it provided did not, in fact save labor overall. Nor did it make life better overall. It made a very small set of people much much richer; especially the investors around the world who funded the banks who funded the slave purchases. It made a larger set of consumers more comfortable at the cost of the lives of those poorer. Over a hundred years later this model is still the basis for our society.

Modern “AI” is a cotton gin. It makes a lot of painstaking things much easier and available to everyone. Writing, reading, drawing, summarizing, reviewing medical cases, hiring, firing, tracking productivity, driving, identifying people in a lineup…they all can now be done automatically. Put aside whether it’s actually capable of doing any of those things *well*; the investors don’t care if their products are good, they only care if they can make more money off of them. So long as they work enough to sell, the errors, and the human cost of those errors, are irrelevant. And like the cotton gin, AI has other side effects. When those jobs are gone, are the new jobs better? Or are we all working that much harder, with even more negative consequences to our life if we fall off the treadmill? One more fear to keep us “productive”.

The Luddites learned this lesson the hard way, and history demonizes them for it; because history isn’t written by the losers.

They’ve wrapped “AI” with a shiny ribbon to make it fun and appealing to the masses. How could something so fun to play with be dangerous? But like the story we are told about the cotton gin, the true costs are hidden.

#ML #TESCREAL

@nazgul This is one of the best takes on AI I've seen so far. Thanks!

@nazgul @naught101

While this is indeed a good assessment of the role, ai will probably take, I think it is important to see, that this is not a problem with AI (or cotton gin), but with the mindset behind capitalism and industrislisation.
Even if we somehow manage to abandon every form of AI (which is very unlikely), the next cotton gin will come along and do the same. Like the steam hammer or computers did.

Fight capitalism, not ai.

@xilebo @nazgul @naught101

I get what you're saying and I agree. But there is a bit of a difference. The cotton gin did what it was supposed to do. AI doesn't.

@DoNotPunchDown

The LLMs are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. And if you use them as intended, they can be a great help.
Unfortunately, a lot of people do not understand, what they are supposed. It's like if people would have drunk cotton gin and then complained about the health issues.

Only that marketing people seem to advertise wrong application of LLMs. It's like a combination of cotton gin and snake oil. :D

"Drink cotton gin! It cures all your ailments!"

@nazgul @naught101

@xilebo @nazgul @naught101

I get what you're saying but I disagree. It may do some of what it's supposed to do but it also does stuff it isn't supposed to do. You use the cotton gin and it only does what it's supposed to do, and the cotton gin can't get drunk. That's not true for LLM. Though I agree it can't get drunk either. 😁

I'm sorry, but until it's safe and correct, it's useless. ✌🏻

@DoNotPunchDown It's useful if you don't care about safe and correct. e.g. if you're in marketing and just want to write some guff without care for correctness.

But yeah, part of the problem is that it's marketed as safe and truth-y.

@xilebo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin - it's not a drink, it's a machine.

Agree that capitalism (or more broadly, unchecked power accumulation) is the underlying issue though.

@nazgul

Cotton gin - Wikipedia

@naught101

Hm, I somehow was of the impression it was a chemical substance. But it's a machine...

I just learned something. Thank you.
Now I will have to read more about cotton gin.

@DoNotPunchDown @nazgul

@naught101

I just read an article about a woman who says, she has family members who are dyslexic and can, for the first time, comfortably write texts, thanks to LLMs.
Most of the article is about her fixing blunders of people, who let texts be written completely by LLMs. She often has to replace all texts on a website, because it wasn't even reusable.
They were blunt, colorless and boring (according to her) and completely useless for marketing.

@DoNotPunchDown @nazgul