nixCraft 🐧5d ago

Google CEO tries to tell University students to love AI. They tell him to BOO off.

It is good to see kids are saying no and fighting back. Do you know why? Because the future of bots, AI and robots doesn't offer any jobs to these young kids. They know greedy AI companies want to get rid of working class. It is simple as that.

For those who wish to read instead of the clip. See BBC page: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8pqd54qneo

#ai #llm

Show threadnixCraft 🐧5d ago
AI leaders like him and their AI companies are highly speculative and profit from that speculation in billions each yeer, while ordinary people like us and the kids in this video who boo and make similar speculations are called alarmists or Luddites.
Show threaddatatofu5d ago

@nixCraft Equivocation fallacy detected.

> In finance, an asset is "speculative" if its value is based on potential future price movements rather than current cash flow or intrinsic utility.

> In a debate about AI or technology, "speculative" refers to conjecture or reasoning based on hypothetical scenarios that have not happened and have no data to support them yet.

An investment perspective and a Luddite perspective are not the same

Show threadTired Bunny  
@drmorrisj @nixCraft

> value is based on potential future price movements rather than current cash flow or intrinsic utility.

Pretty much fits a lot of concerns about AI too. Investments into it are mostly based on idea that it will soon become profitable to the point of badly damaging companies who didn't invest into it. While currently, AI is too costly to be profitable and too unreliable and produces low quality output to talk about intrinsic utility.

So called Luddites don't care much about whether this investment will fail or not, but they are savvy enough to see why this investment happens and call it speculative in business sense too.
May 19 at 4:48pmWeb
Show threaddatatofu5d ago

@tiredbun @nixCraft so... is this an attempt to justify the fallacy or are you making a new one? I can not tell.

Using one to justify the other is like saying you should not buy a lottery ticket (financial speculation) because you are afraid of ghosts (theoretical speculation).

Show threadTired Bunny  5d ago
@drmorrisj @nixCraft

I just think that trying to make distinction is useless, because the way AI companies earn money is with more investments because of overvalued investments and promises, which is another form of investment speculation, and the way people suffer for it isn't any speculation at all. When people say value of AI companies is speculative, they mean in that sense too.
Show threaddatatofu5d ago
@tiredbun @nixCraft so... you were in fact defending the equivocation fallacy and have decided that if you cry hard enough somebody will say that you are correct? To bring it back into the realm of logic, the DOT com bubble was also overinflated. Therefore, according to your rules, the internet is speculative.
Show threadTired Bunny  5d ago
@drmorrisj @nixCraft

Something having or not having speculative or overinflated value doesn't explicitly mean it will forever be that way. Internet is irrelevant here.

Though I recognise I (especially in my first reply, in which I noted that definition you gave still seems to fit AI in my opinion) and nixcraft may be technically wrong for using a specific term instead of another it doesn't exactly mean much for the actual point, is what I want to say.
Show threaddatatofu5d ago

@tiredbun @nixCraft The difference between us is simple: I build the models, so I define them by what they do. You dislike the tech, so you define it by how it feels.

​Admitting you are "technically wrong" while claiming it "doesn't matter" is just a long-winded way of saying you are arguing from emotion. Next time you see a "ghost" in the machine, remember the math you could not be arsed to learn.

​Good luck with the content warnings

Show threadTired Bunny  5d ago
@drmorrisj @nixCraft

My point may have also been hard to follow so:

- My first reply - I question if there even is a fallacy because your definition still fits. Maybe a stretch, which is I now agree after thinking.
- Other replies, after I saw you say that original point is a fallacy - I say that even if term is incorrect or confusing with "investments" mentioned beside it, the point still stands that "AI" is overvalued and actively harmful.

About me "disliking tech" - I like tech in general, I spend a lot of my time, productive or hobby, on IT admin and programmer things. I even liked so called AI (and still like many parts of machine learning that actually bemefit society, be that computer vision or ML-based OCR), until I saw how much it negatively impacted me and those around me. You sound quite condencing trying to say things I say doesn't matter because I am "emotional" while you actually work on whatever sort of machine learning or statistical models that you equate with what companies call AI nowadays.

About CWs - screw you for removing them and then mocking me about it, actually, very petty and unnecessary. I have them because this a divisive topic that my followers may not want to read about when they are fed up about it.
Show threaddatatofu5d ago

@tiredbun @nixCraft
> this entire thread

> "I spend a lot of my time, productive or hobby, on IT admin and programmer things"

Show threadTired Bunny  5d ago
@drmorrisj @nixCraft

How could you tell my second hobby was arguing with idiots on the internets?  

Though you seem to have free time for that too. I don't get what is so funny to you.
Show threadTired Bunny  5d ago
@drmorrisj

My idea is, phrasing it like your example - you should not invest into company that is based on promises of ghosts. So called luddites are more concerned with that company is killing people, but they also will be angry that promised ghosts are theoretical speculation, and that investors are going in because of promises and blankets made to look like ghosts.

If that doesn't exactly fit a specific domain-specific definition of speculation and you technically wrong for calling investitions speculative, that doesn't really matter for the point. Maybe not ideal phrasing on the side of @nixCraft, but it's not really a fallacy.