mccFeb 4

RE: https://mastodon.social/@mcc/116004809011481588

Anyway the reason I roll my eyes at most of the discussion about "AI", "AGI", "the singularity", "intelligence self-improvement feedback loop" is that like, it happened, it's already happened, it's been happening, it's us. We're it.

Kurzweil talked about lusting for a machine that can make him smarter. I have that, it's a piece of paper. I can write math on a piece of paper and solve problems I can't solve in my head. I can upload all the information in the world directly into my brain (books).

Show threadmccFeb 4
What "singularity" fanatics actually want is to not have to put in the work
Show thread✧✦Catherine✦✧Feb 5
@mcc I don't think this is inherently bad. for example, I'm unwilling to put in the work of learning hundreds of human languages, so I'm using machine translation tools. I'm unwilling to put in the work of writing letters (or punching through punchcards) so I type on a keyboard.
Show threadmccFeb 5
@whitequark I'm putting hundreds of hours into learning a new human language and what I believe is that when I am done I will be able to read texts in that language, which is not the case with the machine translation tools. Source: I have tried the machine translation tools and they weren't shit
Show thread✧✦Catherine✦✧Feb 5

@mcc the RoI of learning Chinese to read poetry (at which machine translation tools suck) is very different from RoI of learning Chinese to read another stuipd datasheet for something you pulled out of e-waste (at which machine translation tools are quite good or at least sufficient because it is so formulaic)

source: I have tried the machine translation tools and they were the shit

Show thread✧✦Catherine✦✧Feb 5
@mcc anyway, any complaint that boils down to "they aren't willing to put in the work" is just Protestant work ethic shrink-wrapped in a post and I think that is corrosive
Show threadSnoopJFeb 5

@whitequark @mcc I hate the cliche of "word calculator" but I think machine translation definitely fits that bill when you just want a sense of what the text says (rather than the ability to read it as a native)

I think part of the reason the field has survived the rise of slopware is because it existed long beforehand, so "a worse way to do it" wasn't as attractive of an option and specialist models (Bergamot) are still dominating that use-case.

I do think a lot about how one of the models popular with Enthusiasts once gave me a very detailed explanation of why 私 is a more polite "word" than わたし. Very accurate reproduction of a guy from the 2000s who knows absolutely fucking nothing about Japanese.

Show thread✧✦Catherine✦✧Feb 5

@SnoopJ @mcc yeah. if I want a translation that is actually good I will simply pay a human translator (something I've done before!) for a result incomparable with either machine translation or learning the language myself. but I would only do this for source material I like. I engage a lot with source material that is adversarial: where it only exists as an obstacle towards something I want (e.g. turning e-waste into not e-waste).

There is absolutely no way I will grace such material with hundreds of hours of my lifetime.

Show thread✧✦Catherine✦✧Feb 5
@SnoopJ @mcc the final point of extending this thought is: my issue with the group described as 'singularity fanatics' above is less "they don't want to put in the work" (not wanting to put in the work is the root of most large scale social advancements), and more "they view literally everyone else as an obstacle or means to an end". I think that's a problem. I think the work ethic thing is the opposite of a problem
Show threadGlyphFeb 5
@whitequark @SnoopJ @mcc “not wanting to put in the work” is perhaps a lightly problematic shorthand but here’s how I read it (not problematically): mcc is talking specifically about self-improvement. the slopthusiast wants the emotional reassurance and the social approval of having self-improved. yet they are unwilling to do the requisite steps. instead they are comfortable with accepting a fraudulent result. “not putting in the work” is stolen valor basically
Show threadGlyphFeb 5
@whitequark @SnoopJ @mcc archetypical example of this would be a slopmonger who wants to be an author. they prompt chatgpt to write a book and they self publish on amazon. they tell their friends and family “I have become a published author”. no they haven’t. they didn’t put in the work.
Show threadGlyphFeb 5
@whitequark @SnoopJ @mcc the protestant work ethic is of course gravely problematic but it’s not like it comes from nowhere: many tasks in life require effort to accomplish. effort is unpleasant. thus as social animals we reward this effort with social approval to motivate individuals to put it forth in the future. we should (non-protestantly) value efficiency and achieving the same result with less investment, but we should not value doing a shit job and creating a fake result instead.
Show threadasie
@glyph @mcc @SnoopJ @whitequark

I disagree with the assumption that we reward effort with social approval. I have put in months, sometimes years of effort, into projects which are impressive, but hardly anybody other than me actually asked for. These have received far less social approval than some weekend hack jobs I made which solved legitimate problems shared by many people. My most popular stuff was often the stuff I was least proud of from an effort perspective, while my labors of love I put almost too much time into ended up largely ignored or even harshly (but constructively!) criticized.

I have met and seen many brilliant people whose work has essentially been ignored, despite the fact they put in so much effort into it. In some cases, I saw it be derived from by people who put in less added effort but got more attention, or even outright plagiarized. At some point, "you put in so much work!" starts feeling less like approval and more like pity. Taking the example of the book author, it'd be like if you spent a year or two writing a book, released it, your friends went "oh that's so impressive!" but none of them actually read or buy the book, because it's not interesting to them. What good was that social validation? It can feel almost empty.

Today, we have silicon put to the task of trying to extract subjective notions of quality - and thus mainstream appeal - from massive data sets. I can see how someone who perceives the value of performing art, or learning a language, or etc. in "social validation" exclusively would be attracted to it. Even if you put in the effort, you are never guaranteed appeal, you are not even guaranteed respect - but LLMs can spit out something that tries to approximate appeal, even if you get no respect and don't contribute anything meaningful or valuable in the end. I don't think they care about being seen as "having self-improved"; that's respect, not appeal.

Effort is unpleasant, but it is not distributed fairly either. "AI bros" can feel it, but derive the wrong conclusions, because they are focused on getting that social validation which they feel has been denied to them. Even if you object to LLMs, we have tons of shortcuts available already - how many plagiarism cases from famous people do you remember?

I think we should not confuse effort of results with perceived value of results at all, and especially not throw passion into the mix. It sets up people for a lot of self-hating down the line, when they realize what they always wanted to do is actually something nobody cares about, while people who have put in equal effort got much further along due to often non-effort-related reasons.

But I don't really have any better answers. Incentivizing things nobody wants has its own problems. Maybe we should instead incentivize community - being in a group will steer people towards making that which provides at least local benefit.
Feb 5 at 6:31amWeb