I keep seeing the "cars replaced horses" thing related to "AI."
-
I keep seeing the "cars replaced horses" thing related to "AI."
People keep comparing "AI" to cars (positively) without thinking about the fact that cars were forced on people (AAA bought up and destroyed tram lines, there were massive protests, etc), and are the primary driver of climate change that is currently on track to make complex human society impossible. Meanwhile, cities that weren't destroyed for cars, or that have reversed most of the damage, are some of the most desirable places to live.
Maybe we could take the car analogy as a warning. Maybe it could be a reminder to think about how forcing technology on people against their will can reshape society in a profoundly negative way.
The answer for cities has been to right-size transit. Eliminate cars wherever possible, maintain emergency vehicles and mobility aids, and find more efficient alternatives (bikes, trams, metros, and trains) where possible. I feel as though we can extrapolate from the metaphor.
We do not have to repeat the mistake of reshaping society around a single, oversimplified, solution in order to benefit a tiny minority. Perhaps we can actually choose the right technologies based on use cases, rather than hype or dogma.
Cars didn't replace horses. Cars replaced walkable cities, tram lines and mass transit, and children playing in the streets.
"Cars replaced horses" to the benefit of a small group of elite men, at tremendous cost to literally everyone else. When people say, "AI is the new 'cars replacing horses'" they are saying something very specific about their privilege and intentions.
@Hex Also, in this analogy, are we supposed to be the horses?!
-
I keep seeing the "cars replaced horses" thing related to "AI."
People keep comparing "AI" to cars (positively) without thinking about the fact that cars were forced on people (AAA bought up and destroyed tram lines, there were massive protests, etc), and are the primary driver of climate change that is currently on track to make complex human society impossible. Meanwhile, cities that weren't destroyed for cars, or that have reversed most of the damage, are some of the most desirable places to live.
Maybe we could take the car analogy as a warning. Maybe it could be a reminder to think about how forcing technology on people against their will can reshape society in a profoundly negative way.
The answer for cities has been to right-size transit. Eliminate cars wherever possible, maintain emergency vehicles and mobility aids, and find more efficient alternatives (bikes, trams, metros, and trains) where possible. I feel as though we can extrapolate from the metaphor.
We do not have to repeat the mistake of reshaping society around a single, oversimplified, solution in order to benefit a tiny minority. Perhaps we can actually choose the right technologies based on use cases, rather than hype or dogma.
Cars didn't replace horses. Cars replaced walkable cities, tram lines and mass transit, and children playing in the streets.
"Cars replaced horses" to the benefit of a small group of elite men, at tremendous cost to literally everyone else. When people say, "AI is the new 'cars replacing horses'" they are saying something very specific about their privilege and intentions.
@Hex You wrote "on track to make complex human society impossible"? When I searched for worst case scenarios it never stated anything that would have that consequence and I looked for runaway greenhouse effect, tipping points, permafrost, methane, venus, max ambient temperature for sweat to cool ...
AlI I read suggests that igniting even all fossil fuel reserves would not be catastrophic (as in extinction event) to humanity and most certainly not to Earth.
So what should I read to convince me otherwise, if I may ask?
-
@Hex Also while horses could not be reasonably, ethically nor hygenically scaled to industrialize with cities past a certain point (hence mass transit), it is easy to forget horses are superior to Teslas.
1. Horses are so reliable when cared for and trained that trail riding tourism is a stable relatively-safe global industry. Trail rides are often over rugged, chaotic terrain too.
2. If you drive a horse drunk, or fall asleep at the reigns a horse has a brain so you *probably won't die.
@Alonealastalovedalongthe @Hex
*reins
-
I keep seeing the "cars replaced horses" thing related to "AI."
People keep comparing "AI" to cars (positively) without thinking about the fact that cars were forced on people (AAA bought up and destroyed tram lines, there were massive protests, etc), and are the primary driver of climate change that is currently on track to make complex human society impossible. Meanwhile, cities that weren't destroyed for cars, or that have reversed most of the damage, are some of the most desirable places to live.
Maybe we could take the car analogy as a warning. Maybe it could be a reminder to think about how forcing technology on people against their will can reshape society in a profoundly negative way.
The answer for cities has been to right-size transit. Eliminate cars wherever possible, maintain emergency vehicles and mobility aids, and find more efficient alternatives (bikes, trams, metros, and trains) where possible. I feel as though we can extrapolate from the metaphor.
We do not have to repeat the mistake of reshaping society around a single, oversimplified, solution in order to benefit a tiny minority. Perhaps we can actually choose the right technologies based on use cases, rather than hype or dogma.
Cars didn't replace horses. Cars replaced walkable cities, tram lines and mass transit, and children playing in the streets.
"Cars replaced horses" to the benefit of a small group of elite men, at tremendous cost to literally everyone else. When people say, "AI is the new 'cars replacing horses'" they are saying something very specific about their privilege and intentions.
@Hex I do think the analogy is a good one but I don't think it's a good narrative because the vast majority of people still sees cars as a good thing, despite the negative aspects you mention.
-
I keep seeing the "cars replaced horses" thing related to "AI."
People keep comparing "AI" to cars (positively) without thinking about the fact that cars were forced on people (AAA bought up and destroyed tram lines, there were massive protests, etc), and are the primary driver of climate change that is currently on track to make complex human society impossible. Meanwhile, cities that weren't destroyed for cars, or that have reversed most of the damage, are some of the most desirable places to live.
Maybe we could take the car analogy as a warning. Maybe it could be a reminder to think about how forcing technology on people against their will can reshape society in a profoundly negative way.
The answer for cities has been to right-size transit. Eliminate cars wherever possible, maintain emergency vehicles and mobility aids, and find more efficient alternatives (bikes, trams, metros, and trains) where possible. I feel as though we can extrapolate from the metaphor.
We do not have to repeat the mistake of reshaping society around a single, oversimplified, solution in order to benefit a tiny minority. Perhaps we can actually choose the right technologies based on use cases, rather than hype or dogma.
Cars didn't replace horses. Cars replaced walkable cities, tram lines and mass transit, and children playing in the streets.
"Cars replaced horses" to the benefit of a small group of elite men, at tremendous cost to literally everyone else. When people say, "AI is the new 'cars replacing horses'" they are saying something very specific about their privilege and intentions.
@Hex it's the well-known sealioning. If there is any intent to actually go into a conversation that maybe they would learn something and change their views - you would know
But the people you talk about don't have that intention or openness. They just want to troll saying "Gotcha!"
-
@Hex but even if you weren't forced to buy a car you are forced to deal with the negative externalities like air pollution, noise pollution, and pedestrian fatalities. Let's not forget that cars brought us the delightful innovation of leaded gasoline, which then literally coated the planet in lead.
I do think LLMs are bringing us the next form of leaded gasoline, everything is getting worse, and all information is getting warped. Misinformation was already getting bad before LLMs but it's accelerated that problem by an order of magnitude. It seems to exacerbate mental health problems in many people. I could go on.
@fancysandwiches
I asked the llm for recipes for lead paint chips...
@Hex @zzt -
I keep seeing the "cars replaced horses" thing related to "AI."
People keep comparing "AI" to cars (positively) without thinking about the fact that cars were forced on people (AAA bought up and destroyed tram lines, there were massive protests, etc), and are the primary driver of climate change that is currently on track to make complex human society impossible. Meanwhile, cities that weren't destroyed for cars, or that have reversed most of the damage, are some of the most desirable places to live.
Maybe we could take the car analogy as a warning. Maybe it could be a reminder to think about how forcing technology on people against their will can reshape society in a profoundly negative way.
The answer for cities has been to right-size transit. Eliminate cars wherever possible, maintain emergency vehicles and mobility aids, and find more efficient alternatives (bikes, trams, metros, and trains) where possible. I feel as though we can extrapolate from the metaphor.
We do not have to repeat the mistake of reshaping society around a single, oversimplified, solution in order to benefit a tiny minority. Perhaps we can actually choose the right technologies based on use cases, rather than hype or dogma.
Cars didn't replace horses. Cars replaced walkable cities, tram lines and mass transit, and children playing in the streets.
"Cars replaced horses" to the benefit of a small group of elite men, at tremendous cost to literally everyone else. When people say, "AI is the new 'cars replacing horses'" they are saying something very specific about their privilege and intentions.
-
@Hex
I've never forgotten that the USA had a strong network of inter-city light rail before the oil industry got Eisenhower to demolish it and build the interstate highway system that's a big part of what's killing the planet now.@Hex
Come to think of it, a hell of lot of Americans have died on those interstate highways, too!Driving is much more dangerous than taking a train.
-
@Hex and yet we still must drive
@niomi yeah... isn't a horse at least a largely self-driving vehicle? Safer than a car, too. Try to make a horse crash into a tree at 120km/h because you fell alseep on it!
-
@Hex
Come to think of it, a hell of lot of Americans have died on those interstate highways, too!Driving is much more dangerous than taking a train.
@Hex
A free nationwide solar-powered system of electric intercity light rail that interlocks with a well-developed mass transit system in every city would change the nation. -
@Hex but even if you weren't forced to buy a car you are forced to deal with the negative externalities like air pollution, noise pollution, and pedestrian fatalities. Let's not forget that cars brought us the delightful innovation of leaded gasoline, which then literally coated the planet in lead.
I do think LLMs are bringing us the next form of leaded gasoline, everything is getting worse, and all information is getting warped. Misinformation was already getting bad before LLMs but it's accelerated that problem by an order of magnitude. It seems to exacerbate mental health problems in many people. I could go on.
@fancysandwiches @Hex total sidenote but I learned this week that single prop engine planes still run mostly on leaded fuel for some reason, and that’s why a lot of people around smaller airports have problems with raised lead levels, especially children (might be because they get closer monitoring or put more ground and fauna in their mouth when outside).
-
I keep seeing the "cars replaced horses" thing related to "AI."
People keep comparing "AI" to cars (positively) without thinking about the fact that cars were forced on people (AAA bought up and destroyed tram lines, there were massive protests, etc), and are the primary driver of climate change that is currently on track to make complex human society impossible. Meanwhile, cities that weren't destroyed for cars, or that have reversed most of the damage, are some of the most desirable places to live.
Maybe we could take the car analogy as a warning. Maybe it could be a reminder to think about how forcing technology on people against their will can reshape society in a profoundly negative way.
The answer for cities has been to right-size transit. Eliminate cars wherever possible, maintain emergency vehicles and mobility aids, and find more efficient alternatives (bikes, trams, metros, and trains) where possible. I feel as though we can extrapolate from the metaphor.
We do not have to repeat the mistake of reshaping society around a single, oversimplified, solution in order to benefit a tiny minority. Perhaps we can actually choose the right technologies based on use cases, rather than hype or dogma.
Cars didn't replace horses. Cars replaced walkable cities, tram lines and mass transit, and children playing in the streets.
"Cars replaced horses" to the benefit of a small group of elite men, at tremendous cost to literally everyone else. When people say, "AI is the new 'cars replacing horses'" they are saying something very specific about their privilege and intentions.
@Hex
No dejo de ver esa idea de que «los autos reemplazaron a los caballos» en relación con la «IA».La gente sigue comparando la «IA» con los autos (de manera positiva) sin pensar en el hecho de que los autos se impusieron a la fuerza a la población (la AAA compró y destruyó las líneas de tranvía, hubo protestas masivas, etc.), y son el principal factor del cambio climático que, en la actualidad, va camino de hacer imposible la existencia de una sociedad humana compleja. Mientras tanto, las ciudades que no fueron destruidas por los autos, o que han revertido la mayor parte del daño, son algunos de los lugares más deseables para vivir.
Quizás podríamos tomar la analogía de los autos como una advertencia. Quizás podría servir como un recordatorio para pensar en cómo imponer tecnología a la gente en contra de su voluntad puede transformar la sociedad de una manera profundamente negativa.
La respuesta para las ciudades ha sido ajustar el transporte público a la necesidad real. Eliminar los autos siempre que sea posible, mantener los vehículos de emergencia y los medios de movilidad asistida, y buscar alternativas más eficientes (bicicletas, tranvías, metros y trenes) cuando sea posible. Siento que podemos extrapolar a partir de esta metáfora.
No tenemos que repetir el error de remodelar la sociedad en torno a una única solución, excesivamente simplificada, con el fin de beneficiar a una minúscula minoría. Quizás podamos elegir las tecnologías adecuadas basándonos en casos de uso, en lugar de en modas pasajeras o dogmas.
Los autos no reemplazaron a los caballos. Los autos reemplazaron a las ciudades transitables a pie, a las líneas de tranvía y al transporte público, y a los niños que jugaban en las calles.
«Los autos reemplazaron a los caballos» en beneficio de un pequeño grupo de hombres de élite, a un costo tremendo para, literalmente, todos los demás. Cuando la gente dice: «La IA es el nuevo “reemplazo de los caballos por los autos”», está diciendo algo muy específico sobre sus privilegios e intenciones.
-
Some old white dude decided to jump all over yelling "Ackchyually, no one forced you to buy a car!!", and I'm just blocking. This shit is so easy to research. Like, yeah, people were forced to buy a car by minimum parking zoning that spread out cities, mass transit being (very intentionally) destroyed, and giant cars that murder people. There are actual laws that very intentionally made things worse, and then there's the intentionally created prisoner's dilemma of ever expanding car sizes.
This shit is extremely easy to research. At this point I'm just assuming it's trolls or the type of people who would be like "but no one has *proved* smoking causes cancer" back in the 90's. Yeah, that was a thing, and they sounded *just fucking like these people today.*
Yeah. Nobody is forcing you to buy a car. We are just going to build houses really far from jobs and grocery stores without offering any public transportation.
-
-
I keep seeing the "cars replaced horses" thing related to "AI."
People keep comparing "AI" to cars (positively) without thinking about the fact that cars were forced on people (AAA bought up and destroyed tram lines, there were massive protests, etc), and are the primary driver of climate change that is currently on track to make complex human society impossible. Meanwhile, cities that weren't destroyed for cars, or that have reversed most of the damage, are some of the most desirable places to live.
Maybe we could take the car analogy as a warning. Maybe it could be a reminder to think about how forcing technology on people against their will can reshape society in a profoundly negative way.
The answer for cities has been to right-size transit. Eliminate cars wherever possible, maintain emergency vehicles and mobility aids, and find more efficient alternatives (bikes, trams, metros, and trains) where possible. I feel as though we can extrapolate from the metaphor.
We do not have to repeat the mistake of reshaping society around a single, oversimplified, solution in order to benefit a tiny minority. Perhaps we can actually choose the right technologies based on use cases, rather than hype or dogma.
Cars didn't replace horses. Cars replaced walkable cities, tram lines and mass transit, and children playing in the streets.
"Cars replaced horses" to the benefit of a small group of elite men, at tremendous cost to literally everyone else. When people say, "AI is the new 'cars replacing horses'" they are saying something very specific about their privilege and intentions.
@Hex Whole bunch of people, mostly men, decided to make it their whole personality, get incredibly defensive or straight up aggressive whenever you point out all the awful aspects of it.
Marketing makes the users feel empowered and self sufficient, while in reality they're fully dependent on a giant industry and have to keep paying in order to use the thing.
The whole AI=cars analogy makes more sense the more you think about it, just not in the way the techbros intended.
-
I keep seeing the "cars replaced horses" thing related to "AI."
People keep comparing "AI" to cars (positively) without thinking about the fact that cars were forced on people (AAA bought up and destroyed tram lines, there were massive protests, etc), and are the primary driver of climate change that is currently on track to make complex human society impossible. Meanwhile, cities that weren't destroyed for cars, or that have reversed most of the damage, are some of the most desirable places to live.
Maybe we could take the car analogy as a warning. Maybe it could be a reminder to think about how forcing technology on people against their will can reshape society in a profoundly negative way.
The answer for cities has been to right-size transit. Eliminate cars wherever possible, maintain emergency vehicles and mobility aids, and find more efficient alternatives (bikes, trams, metros, and trains) where possible. I feel as though we can extrapolate from the metaphor.
We do not have to repeat the mistake of reshaping society around a single, oversimplified, solution in order to benefit a tiny minority. Perhaps we can actually choose the right technologies based on use cases, rather than hype or dogma.
Cars didn't replace horses. Cars replaced walkable cities, tram lines and mass transit, and children playing in the streets.
"Cars replaced horses" to the benefit of a small group of elite men, at tremendous cost to literally everyone else. When people say, "AI is the new 'cars replacing horses'" they are saying something very specific about their privilege and intentions.
@Hex Your supposed "fact" that cars are somehow the "primary driver of climate change" is horseshit.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-overview
-
People really, really do not want to believe that the daily stuff in use is set by infrastructural decisions made over large scales by people with power. Sure, you as an individual can not buy a car, which will be a variably livable decision based on where you live, but a society where the infrastructure builders have decided on cars will have cars.
@richpuchalsky @Hex no, because of they did, they would have to think about who they put in power. They would have to think!
-
@Hex I do think the analogy is a good one but I don't think it's a good narrative because the vast majority of people still sees cars as a good thing, despite the negative aspects you mention.
-
@Hex Your supposed "fact" that cars are somehow the "primary driver of climate change" is horseshit.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-overview
@xylophilist @Hex well shit
One point was slightly exaggerated, I guess the whole post is now invalid
Good job breaking this one wide open
-
@fancysandwiches @Hex total sidenote but I learned this week that single prop engine planes still run mostly on leaded fuel for some reason, and that’s why a lot of people around smaller airports have problems with raised lead levels, especially children (might be because they get closer monitoring or put more ground and fauna in their mouth when outside).
