> > Because there is a massive backlash against GenAI among quite a wide range > of people. A few reasons: > > > - The maniacal energy of AI’s promoters who insist that anyone who > doesn’t commit fully to the GenAI program will be left in the dust, a > buggy-whip maker > - Revulsion at the central goal of GenAI, namely the discarding of > tens of millions of knowledge workers, the only path forward that could > possibly make the investment bubble a little less insane > - The revolting financial engineering behind the investment bubble; at > the moment we don’t know how far the damage will spread after it pops, but > it’s troubling that several big players are putting billions in SPV > off-balance-sheet structures to finance data center build-outs > - The unaddressed environmental costs of this insanely > energy-intensive technology > - The clueless business managers insisting that everyone start using > GenAI without a clear vision of what benefit is expected > - The clueless engineering managers insisting that entire software > groups move to vibe coding without considering the trade-offs > - The intellectual-property issues already raised in this thread > > I wanted to come back and revisit these points because I agree with most of them and think that while the proposed license isn't a very good way of addressing them, there are alternatives.
I don't actually think AI boosterism needs rebutting particularly. Either they're right (annoyingly) or they aren't, or aren't completely but either way time will tell. Arguing with them seems to me like a waste of time but the right reply seems to me to be reasoned discourse not a software license. I'm not sure I'd characterize discarding workers as a goal, but it certainly doesn't seem to bother a lot of the people pushing AI. A few people have suggested that we can just implement a guaranteed basic income and everyone will live happily ever after in a sort of star trek socialist utopia. I find this... unlikely. It would require a pretty much complete revamping of the existing market based economies of the major countries of the world and I see no evidence that the people making AI money are eager to spread the wealth around out of the goodness of their hearts. If it's going to happen it will require coercion. I don't personally think the current investment bubble requires any particular financial engineering beyond permissive capitalism - which is revolting enough I think. However I do think the structural risks are unique and massive. The entire US economy at this point is a leveraged bet on AI, and the US economy is by far the largest component of the world economy. It's terrifying because unlike previous bubbles, there's no where else to go. The environmental costs are real and in my opinion should be dealt with by treating the biggest AI companies as public utilities and AI as a public good. That's obviously not going to happen in the "current political climate." Which means that to address it will require structural political change. Of which I sometimes despair. I think the clueless managers problem is of a piece with your first point, I think they qualify maniacal boosters of AI but with less clue. In any case, like for the first point I don't see how a draconian software license is helpful in addressing their lack of foresight. The final point, intellectual property, I believe is properly addressed by suing the perpetrators for every penny. Which is happening. — Charles
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
