>But you’re always assuming we’ll still be an a democracy in this post-truth world. There’s no guarantee of that my friend m.

There's not much logical reasoning to think that suddenly the entire world will revert back to monarchy in such a scenario. You seem to think that people will still actually believe the internet. It'll be only post truth in the context of the post 80s Television and camera world. Every other source of information could already have been replicated anyways and has obvious checks on it.

>And We don’t need half the population to spy on the other half, just ultra-sophisticated, omnipresent AI that can monitor thousands of computers at a time…

So you're saying that we can have an ultra sophisticated omnipresent ai that simply cannot be outwitted by any other ai on the market, has unimaginable powers of detection.

>It’d only be an attack on privacy if the government has to do it unilaterally. For all we know, society could welcome such a change if it protect from an “information-apocalypse

Suddenly you go from it being the most logical conclusion to throwing out random very theoretical what if scenarios.

>And I get the drop-in-the-ocean thing, but it only takes making an example out of a few high profile offenders in order for the average joe to feel like it isn’t worth the risk.

Nope. Harsh punishments for drop in the ocean crimes have rarely ever worked in history. The idea that just hanging 10 people for doing video game piracy or something will stop video game piracy is ludicrous. All it'll do is create a lot more unrest as people are unduly punished for minor crimes. Your weird idea of conformism is not going to occur unless they also just get the AI to be so persuasive that everyone believes everything it says or shows in which the law is irrelevant anyways.

>The arms race thing isn’t compelling to me because there’s no guarantee that they’ll always be a way to differentiate a “fake” image from a “real one” (same goes for audio and video).

If it isn't, then we suddenly won't devolve back into mass murderous rage and anarchy. It'll be the death of the internet as an open forum. Small communities of families and friends will still exist, but large scale messaging will become irrelevant.Most people won't start believing anything they see, they'll just stop believing in things they could once trust. The weight will go back on certain channels of information and the pressure on them to report factually will increase dramatically, with harsh pushback for misinformation once again becoming the norm. We won't suddenly become cavemen again, we'll go back into a pre social media era of news where trust in the source becomes more important and more harshly policed.

This battle isn't for the survival of the human race, just some large sections of the internet.

This will also be helped along by the fact that bots will become more competent and impossible to distinguish from real people. So you will not be getting real info or talking to real people.

Shockingly, society did still exist even when there was no internet or even television to get news from. I'd even argue there was a far healthier political climate in most places. It'll lead to some radicalism at the start, no doubt, and basically we won't see leaked videos or audios or pics as legitimate anymore. But eventually, the chain of information will become almost sacred. Who knows, may even be good for society in the long term.

> they could just say “fuck all that” and decide to mandate by law that computers come pre-installed with AI that monitors you’re every move while on the computer.

This is about as practical as shooting people on the street for protesting. It'd be considered a heinous attack on privacy and the government wouldn't last very long without some degree of martial law. The internet is quite directly many people's lives and livelihoods.

>It starts with it criminalizing severely.

No it really doesn't. See, one of the biggest reasons drop in the ocean crimes aren't really punished severely is because of their ease. If you make harsh punishments for easy to do crimes you'll be putting half the country in jail by Sunday.

Not to mention even big brother can't actually fix this without running into all the problems you highlighted in my argument unless you plan on recruiting half the population to spy on the other half.

The inherent problem with this argument is that you're basing much of your opposition on the fact that there's no guarantee this idea works while talking about an idea that has shown no guarantees either.

> have always known that certain technologies have the ability to completely destroy society if left uncontrolled

And here's the fun part, unlike with hardware like guns, you can't really just regulate what and how software is being used. They can't even kill piracy, for crying out loud. If Guns could be anonymously downloaded, used in the comfort of your home and still somehow magically accomplish their purposes anywhere in the world, i can tell you for sure that gun registry would be a pointless practice.

I am strongly pro regulation where it is practical. Here it's simply a waste of everyone's time. If we could stop or even just massively curtail ai misinformation with them that'd be great. But we realistically can't unless you have some really innovative and detailed proposals as to how to go about it.

You can either try shutting generative ai down completely which is impossible, or you can control it using its own abilities. Is it perfect? No. It will more or less lead to a post truth society where the internet is just a mess of well made and high quality lies. But what it may at least do is keep some small oasis' and the legal system safer.

If AI images have been physically indistinguishable they will probably still hold elements that can be distinguished with an ai itself. It's definitely risky but probably more effective than bans. Banning software really isn't going to work, especially in legal matters.

The only thing to do is to start an arms race. Ai evidence fought with fake evidence detectors of some kind. That's the only semi feasible solution.

A bit of both columns. It's the next stage of advancement and it offers a large productivity boom. The large scale point is to just automate everything, and art just proved to be easier since it's in many ways a software only activity while stuff like manual labour is harder to gain data on and requires new hardware to replicate.

The point is that if something is possible to make with the current available it'll almost certainly be made by someone and missing out on it can be dangerous. It's not that they specifically hate artists or anything, in the same way that the car industry wasn't made to specifically destroy or spite the horse industry. It's just a more productive and efficient way of doing things.

I do think legal liability will fade reasonably quickly once certain safety standards are met. Not that they won't still happen it'll just be far better for everyone involved to figure out a framework. Highway robbery is an issue but i also don't see it really blocking change since it's certainly not equal to the value of not hiring a driver. I have no knowledge of the logistics or load management but surely they too can be managed reasonably quickly with some traning.

I do value your experience on this topic and find your concerns legitmate, but i also think that the change will come far quicker than expected just because of lucrative it is for everyone, and how other countries adopting it would lead to a rush everywhere else to not miss out on the productivity boost. A dramatically reduced salary and benefits structure along with more extensive and flexible driving times is just too powerful to ignore once the tech is proven.

We do actually have FSD trucks working some short routes for Walmart, iirc. And we kinda do have some FSD cars. They're still undergoing testing, ofc, but it's mostly on open streets. Mercedes has level 3 models out already by German standards and Kia looks primed for it.

>In regards to the AI art thing; I think the backlash has a lot more to do with whose problem it is instead of the fact that it’s someone’s problem.

For sure. I was speaking more in terms of why there seems to be a rise in left wing anti ai voices, so to speak. It's mostly because of ai "coming after" a heavily left wing and very vocal community.

>A year ago it was conservatives being clowned because of the NFT and Crypto market collapse.

And in another year it'll likely be truck drivers who'd be angry.

Is that really true though? A large section of the relative left or progressive faction has been opposing specific types of tech for centuries at this point. Union protests against more automation have been a long long part of history and green anti-nuclear beliefs are common.

What i do think is happening is that we are having a lot more hue and cry this time since, well, it's a lot bigger now. To add on this is a field that's not very popular yet in the media as compared to just regular politics, so understanding is low and the general impression is just a creeping dread. And traditionally, everyone is afraid of something that poses a real risk to them. Instead of a line being crossed, it's more like people just think that they are under threat.

It's come out a lot more due to the primarily leftist art community being the first to see some massive immediate threat. I imagine it'll tilt the other side when it's some typically right wing jobs being automated.

It's moreso that these are now being amplified due to the large amount of debate and discussion rather than particular lines being crossed.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The fact is that this is an upcoming major and massive change to more or less every section of society. It's going to get flak from every single side imagineable. Not by virtue of their political beliefs but by sheer virtue of the fear of the unknown. Rather than labels i think the focus should currently be on action as a very different kind of binary or trinary emerges.

I agree with the last fear and i think that people should be pro active in preparing for this politically and socially, and it's a pity so little of that's being done.

Basic text to video already exists. Considering how fast text to image has grown, it's not unreasonable to have an optimistic timeline. As for perfect text to image, i really don't see it taking more than a year or two from now given the current rate of advancement (compare something like midjourney v1 to V4, which is around 8-9 months of progress). Obviously they could hit a major snag somewhere but i would not bet on it.

>mainly applies to all basic needs being taken care of, but there will likely be some exotic desires that still have some monetary or cultural limits placed in it.

In an ai manufactured post scarcity it's quite likely that more or less every desire will be taken care of. Cultural limits, quite possibly, but those can't be fixed with any kind of money when the person you're selling to has no desires.

>The rich and powerful are heterogenous (like the rest of us) in their motivations so all it takes is one soul to break the mold and “tradition” and give accessible access to the tech.

The thing is that in a rate of progress so fast, chances are that a remarkably select few may be in charge while the rest are simply unable to cope with the change. There will essentially be no new niche to conquer in terms of business. Once we hit basic post scarcity more extensive post scarcity won't really be far behind, and then power will be the only possible commodity, lying with those who may decide to abuse it or exclude others from it(it is quite reasonable to think that the rich class does include an abnormally high number of empathy lacking people in general).

I guess this argument works in a setting where gradual change occurs, but taking the end point only, in a theoretical post scarcity world(for the rich) there's no real incentive to spread this tech. I agree that at least relatively gradual growth is far more likely and hence we are going to get the incremental improvements at the same time as them, but it's worth noting that capitalism isn't exactly the best answer to the question of what helps the people when capitalism breaks down

I'd guess it's because it's extremely niche even now. It's not legacy tech finally showing signs of life like fusion, and it can't exactly do anything particularly revolutionary, despite being able to a lot of things at a medium-high level(for example, it can code but GitHub copilot already exists, and it's conversational skills are fairly limited). I would be surprised if GPT 4 or at worst 5 don't get massive representation though.

Then everything is unfair. The fact that the same funds also don't go to creating more opportunities for kids to learn more directly useful languages such as English is also unfair.

Atheism is mostly a thing of the rich and well educated. Due to a long series of socioeconomic factors, those happen to mostly be white people. As we see massive growth in third world economies their religions too, will drop very quickly.