Positive users praised a linked McAfee post as much better for offering a balanced view of AI economic impact, while negative users criticized the original statement for its lack of positive vision and questioned the signatories.
Based on 2 visible X reactions from 2 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
@krishnanrohit Given the lack of positive vision in such a short statement, I'm a little surprised by a few of the signatories
This from Andrew McAfee is much better https://x.com/krishnanrohit/status/2076770220379869572/photo/1
Not sure what you mean, Rohit. We intentionally mentioned both the risks and benefits, which include saying "at least a couple words" about the benefits. We compare it to the IR (which was broadly beneficial, but of course uneven). And we conclude that AI can and should aim to benefit society. By design, it is a very short statement. I'm not sure what your complaint is. Did you want us to leave out any risks? List a longer set of benefits?
Yes quite, though rather crucially it wasn't intended as a Plan to steer the IR. Each of those grew from specific worries about specific problems which they had specific ideas on how to solve. I am also immensely hopeful, I'm also wary of premature planning. The other world isn't let's not have institutions, it might be for an increase in state capacity if anything, it's that we should not prejudge what ought to be done and do it lest we central-plan our way into the Bad Place.
The IR was successful in part because a lot of people worked hard to develop institutions and policies (primary education, child labor laws, retirement programs, antitrust law, financial markets and regulation, traffic rules, corporate law, IP law, etc) that steered the outcome (mostly) beneficially. With hard work, I'm hopeful the AI revolution will be equally or more beneficial.
@krishnanrohit Given the lack of positive vision in such a short statement, I'm a little surprised by a few of the signatories
This from Andrew McAfee is much better https://x.com/krishnanrohit/status/2076770220379869572/photo/1
Not sure what you mean, Rohit. We intentionally mentioned both the risks and benefits, which include saying "at least a couple words" about the benefits. We compare it to the IR (which was broadly beneficial, but of course uneven). And we conclude that AI can and should aim to benefit society. By design, it is a very short statement. I'm not sure what your complaint is. Did you want us to leave out any risks? List a longer set of benefits?
Yes quite, though rather crucially it wasn't intended as a Plan to steer the IR. Each of those grew from specific worries about specific problems which they had specific ideas on how to solve. I am also immensely hopeful, I'm also wary of premature planning. The other world isn't let's not have institutions, it might be for an increase in state capacity if anything, it's that we should not prejudge what ought to be done and do it lest we central-plan our way into the Bad Place.
The IR was successful in part because a lot of people worked hard to develop institutions and policies (primary education, child labor laws, retirement programs, antitrust law, financial markets and regulation, traffic rules, corporate law, IP law, etc) that steered the outcome (mostly) beneficially. With hard work, I'm hopeful the AI revolution will be equally or more beneficial.
Fine with acting to understand, not so much guardrails, regardless I would have liked at least a couple words about how this transformative technology that is larger than the Industrial Revolution will make everyone's lives better! Not everything should be about fear. https://x.com/krishnanrohit/status/2076768433635758214/photo/1
@erikbryn "It could bring risks,.... as well as.. major gains in living standards" imagine if we wrote that about IR. Uneven maybe but the benefits were so far beyond our imagination it beggars belief still. Therefore yes I'd have liked more focus on benefits.
@krishnanrohit Exactly! They should have at least said something about "major gains in living standards.
Positive users praised a linked McAfee post as much better for offering a balanced view of AI economic impact, while negative users criticized the original statement for its lack of positive vision and questioned the signatories.
Based on 2 visible X reactions from 2 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
Fine with acting to understand, not so much guardrails, regardless I would have liked at least a couple words about how this transformative technology that is larger than the Industrial Revolution will make everyone's lives better! Not everything should be about fear. https://x.com/krishnanrohit/status/2076768433635758214/photo/1
@erikbryn "It could bring risks,.... as well as.. major gains in living standards" imagine if we wrote that about IR. Uneven maybe but the benefits were so far beyond our imagination it beggars belief still. Therefore yes I'd have liked more focus on benefits.