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 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
-
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 Exactly this! Good analysis...
-
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.
-
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 Cars replaced Horses, so Robots should replace People. Makes sense to me! /s
-
@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?
@hc it's not extinction, but simply the collapse of complex society. So, for example, the US never finished recovering from Katrina two decades and multiple disasters later. As climate change accelerates, disasters pile up faster than there can be disaster response.
Climate change increases weather based disasters, but it also increases the chance of earthquakes because ice melt rebalances tectonic plates. The collapse of the AMOC will collapse the European food system. The most populated places on earth are at risk of heat events that push them past the survival limits of humans.
With the collapse of heat movement, the equator bakes and everything else freezes. That basically destroys the world agricultural system. Ocean acidification collapses the ocean food web.
I'm not sure how complex society survives the collapse of global food supply, mass extinctions in the ocean, and the most populated parts of the earth becoming uninhabitable.
Humans will probably survive, but I'd expect that to be in small pockets. That is, if the mass migration and fascism that follows doesn't kick off nuclear war.
-
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
@millihertz
France here, the government pushed like hell to build an uneeded highway (there is a road already), destroying ecosystems, going against anything that is aligned with science, still with no obvious reasons other than private interests
@hackbyte @Hex -
@hc it's not extinction, but simply the collapse of complex society. So, for example, the US never finished recovering from Katrina two decades and multiple disasters later. As climate change accelerates, disasters pile up faster than there can be disaster response.
Climate change increases weather based disasters, but it also increases the chance of earthquakes because ice melt rebalances tectonic plates. The collapse of the AMOC will collapse the European food system. The most populated places on earth are at risk of heat events that push them past the survival limits of humans.
With the collapse of heat movement, the equator bakes and everything else freezes. That basically destroys the world agricultural system. Ocean acidification collapses the ocean food web.
I'm not sure how complex society survives the collapse of global food supply, mass extinctions in the ocean, and the most populated parts of the earth becoming uninhabitable.
Humans will probably survive, but I'd expect that to be in small pockets. That is, if the mass migration and fascism that follows doesn't kick off nuclear war.
@hc oh, I forgot pandemics. As the climate changes animal ranges change which increases the opportunities for cross species infection. Cross species infection increases the probability of human infection. So climate change increases pandemic risk.
From a cybernetic perspective, there's a point where the complexity of the situation exceeds the ability of the society to absorb. We are approaching that point.
And the most skeptical climate scientists predict that human habitability will be significantly decreased. So far, the most extreme estimates about climate change have been an underestimate.
Now, I don't think we're talking "Venus" here, but we may well be talking about a climate that is so chaotic it's hard for humans to do anything but perpetually struggle to survive.
-
@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 apparently I missed "one of" that I thought I had typed.
But let's actually talk about that chart for a second. "Transportation" literally just means the fuel used. It doesn't account for the carbon released through the entire manufacturing process (from mining ore to steel refining, which is *huge*). That's all lumped into "industry." It also doesn't account for the electricity used for cooling, which is a side effect of the "heat island" effect caused by the giant rivers and lakes of asfalt needed for cars. Nor does it cover electricity generation for EVs. Both of those are in the number 1 category: "electricity and heat production."
The number one source of climate change globally is the US military. Guess what that military spends its time doing.
And while all of the rest of those are falling, guess which one is growing.
Yeah, I think I'll leave the mistake in.
-
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 Indeed. And as André Gorz wrote in the 50 year old, yet still relevant "The Social Ideology of the Car":
"The worst thing about cars is that they are like castles or villas by the sea: luxury goods invented for the exclusive pleasure of a very rich minority...And the essence of luxury is that it cannot be democratized. If everyone can have luxury, no one gets any advantages from it."
Analogously, mass AI use will destroy knowledge ecologies that make AI possible.
https://unevenearth.org/2018/08/the-social-ideology-of-the-motorcar/
