Post

Which is both why we don't need AI and also why fascist conformity and eugenics aren't just morally wrong -- they're self-destructive.

It not a lack of ideas we suffer from. It’s an over focused system that only funds those from a very narrow Group that has nothing to do with prior success.

Maybe if we hadn’t let corporate consolidation happen to this extreme, there would still be robust competition in the capitalist “marketplace of ideas”.

Not insignificant is the number of companies that have been acquired by big tech to stifle competition.

We’re running out of problems that we’re *willing* to fix.

I have lots of good ideas. I just don't have very many good ideas that rich people will like.

💯 The ethos of the 2020's is perfectly captured by the fact that a few well-connected insiders made a very big mistake against explicit advice from the world's top scientific experts, flushed "an enormous number of lives" down the drain and 👉the news media decided for us that it didn't matter👈.

Also, the arbiter of what's a "good" idea has increasingly become concentrated in those who are part of a closed feedback loop.

Seems that any author who is writing about humans running out of ideas is actually just describing one human: the author.

To clarify my point: it's a hack take.

How is AI gonna give us new ideas when the way it works is looking at the ideas we've already had and feeding them back to us?!?!?!

Yes. I'm certainly not swallowing this pro-AI propaganda from fucking fascists! AI is what is going to destroy new ideas, not help them! bsky.app/profile/call...

Saw a quote that people can create 2 or 3 good models a week, but AI can create thousands of models. BUT HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE GOOD ONES? Probably not many.

And they’re pulling the GenAI/ML bait and switch routine.

I'm not going to read the article, but I want to say that you're right. The nice thing about cancel culture, or consequence culture, is that it made room for innovation from people who aren't bigots.

Please review the legal kerfuffle between Edison and the natural gas lobby that went to the SC giving Edison the win. And then Edison's legal response to Tesla's fresh idea of AC power which Edison lost. (Edison publicly electrocuted an elephant using ac to demonstrate how dangerous it was.)

🤝

And I know that's a very first world problem, but a lot of the things I want to do would create high-paying jobs for a lot of people, and open the door to worker ownership in the pharmaceutical sector, and create stockpiles of important drugs for the inevitable next pandemic.

The problem I see if that the difference between ideas that get funded vs ones that die is a matter of marketing. It's not enough to have good ideas, you need to sell it. The skills to have a revolutionary idea may not be the same as the skills to get funding to implement it

Pretending we're out of good ideas is a good way to ignore the best idea of all: that, in the arts and humanities anyway, LLMs are inveterate crap generators and should be diligently avoided or treated with extreme skepticism.

This is exactly the problem I have! We already have LLMs smart enough to tell us what to do about climate change, poverty, etc. because they can just repeat back what the experts are saying. The problem has never been technological. It's been getting those in power to willingly sacrifice profits.