I keep seeing the "cars replaced horses" thing related to "AI."
-
@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).
-
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 what the fuck horse is being replaced by this nonsensical neonazi techbro bullshit? it’s not even a good analogy to begin with. It’s all about mass surveillance.
-
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.*
@Hex it’s very difficult to talk plain facts with someone who has been brainwashed. we are living in a system designed to extract quality of life from the masses and concentrate it at the top. People will go down with their ship, defending this system, the same system that they are oppressed by. It’s actually scary. 
-
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 @KevinFreitas obligatory response to point out another similarity: massive public subsidy. See "Should Law Subsidize Driving?" https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NYULAWREVIEW-95-2-Shill.pdf
LLM systems being forced on us wouldn't exist without the de facto subsidy of theft of writing and imagery, exploitation of workers and externalized costs of resource extraction and energy production.
-
@Hex Still reading, totally with you... "but", don't forget that not the whole planet works like the US. While what you said is true _specifically_ for the US, for europe it is actually not.
You argument is still valid.
I for myself tried to compare it with staying in the bronze age while the rest of the world embraces and develops iron and steel .... Which at least fitted the aspect of the enourmous resource cost .. but lacked the part where cars actually killed of thousands of jobs within a generation and made millions jobless because nobody needed horse farmsand so on anymore.
But all of that does'nt really fit the actual problems we have _today_.
I didn't (directly) use AI yet and i don't plan to change that .. but OTOH i'm a techie and deeply fascinated by all of it.
IMHO, what we need is to understand that it is not "just" the technology but - as you said - it getting massively enforced upon users by literally _everyone_ of the top 1%.
Getting cars in to the hands of the everyday average ppl had at least some positive aspect in the moment. How bad it became in the long run wasn't as clear.
But today, we actually know what the plan behind it is. Centralisation of information and computing.... Actually killing off "home computing" for the profit of GAFAM and their owners.
That's a real threat towards our freedoms.
And IMHO, we get actually used by them because we (all) start(ed) another holy war about if AI is useful or not ...... completely ignoring the actors behind, helping them by ripping eachother apart over what to do or not..
It's just sad.
While what you said is true specifically for the US, for europe it is actually not.
define "europe" - i'm in the UK, the country where a serving prime minister said "anyone still catching a bus at 30 is a failure" and a project to build a couple of hundred miles of high speed track to link our biggest cities is half-cancelled and on the verge of collapsing completely having somehow run up cost overruns into the hundeds of billions, and it feels pretty damn true here
-
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.*
@Hex man, I wish I hadn't had my account suspended - that reply I made about the history of cars in the US was probably the closest thing I have to a viral post lol
-
K koefoed@helvede.net shared this topic
