I think what we should be asking is, is AI sustainable? Who is paying for it? If you have to build huge data centres that suck down massive amounts of water and electricity, then what is the point of integrating AI into our lives if we cannot sustain it? Except there is no "we." There are only poverty-class communities that are told, "Oh, sorry, there's a water shortage." There's a power shortage. Why promote using this technology in that context?
Here in Canada and the US they will just rip off the most vulnerable communities for their resources, and these same communities will not even have access to computers and the internet, never mind AI because they cannot afford to pay for it. There will not be any attempt at ensuring everyone is treated fairly. And water is finite. How does investing in infrastructure change that?
If you're talking about indigenous communities, I think my stance on that is, again, the same thing:
1. Build infrastructure for them.
2. Build roads for them.
3. Help them to grow their economy.
4. Give them power.
That power is to improve the community, improve their living standard, and improve their economic status that relies on infrastructure. Talking about water, water is finite. Yes, but 70% of the earth is water. you can always recycle the water for cooling or whatever the data center needs. It requires the government to enforce such laws to make sure those data centers use reclaimed water.
This is something like, for example, a lot of people are against building more factories because they think factories will bring pollution. But if you look at China, we built so many factories. it brought pollution, now, The government has the money, the community has the money, and they use that money to invest into green energy, aka infrastructure, to balance out the damage done to the community.
Now you look at China, big change. You cannot stop progress because of one issue you don't like. I believe things like what you mentioned, we can solve that with technology, with infrastructure, but it requires a good governance.
Yes- children are the future (if we have one, which is looking increasingly unlikely!) and the earlier they are introduced to a subject and technology, the better their understanding of it will be *before they are indoctrinated/conditioned by society*. This will mean they will have a much greater understanding of potential issues and uses by the time they are adults.
The dangers of AI are all down to those who control it, because the capitalist colonials want to use it to control the narrative and spy on everyone to eliminate dissent. Maybe that’s the same aim for Chinese government, but for different reasons. If AI became truly intelligent it would tell us how stupid, delusional and dangerous our corrupt, insatiably greedy leaders and the corporations they serve are. That doesn’t even require much intelligence, just an ability to see reality.
I completely agree with you. It is very important to understand who controls the AI. If the corporation controls it, then they will always be for the profit. If it is controlled by the state, and the state is controlled by the people or at least serves the people, then we might have fewer issues, as the state might use the AI to benefit the people
Preferably, we would have a national policy guiding the equitable and appropriate introduction of AI into the classroom in a way that supports critical thought rather than replacing it. If only we had something like a Department of Education to drive this effort so individual mayors don’t feel they have to do it on their own. But this is fairly illustrative of the US approach to AI; everyone figure it out on your own and deal with the consequences later (also on your own). Considering the dinosaurs in Congress never mastered the VCR, I wouldn’t count on any of these fossils to enact well-informed AI policy.
I think what we should be asking is, is AI sustainable? Who is paying for it? If you have to build huge data centres that suck down massive amounts of water and electricity, then what is the point of integrating AI into our lives if we cannot sustain it? Except there is no "we." There are only poverty-class communities that are told, "Oh, sorry, there's a water shortage." There's a power shortage. Why promote using this technology in that context?
Yes, I understand, but the two issues you mentioned, electricity and water, can actually be solved by investing in infrastructure
Here in Canada and the US they will just rip off the most vulnerable communities for their resources, and these same communities will not even have access to computers and the internet, never mind AI because they cannot afford to pay for it. There will not be any attempt at ensuring everyone is treated fairly. And water is finite. How does investing in infrastructure change that?
If you're talking about indigenous communities, I think my stance on that is, again, the same thing:
1. Build infrastructure for them.
2. Build roads for them.
3. Help them to grow their economy.
4. Give them power.
That power is to improve the community, improve their living standard, and improve their economic status that relies on infrastructure. Talking about water, water is finite. Yes, but 70% of the earth is water. you can always recycle the water for cooling or whatever the data center needs. It requires the government to enforce such laws to make sure those data centers use reclaimed water.
This is something like, for example, a lot of people are against building more factories because they think factories will bring pollution. But if you look at China, we built so many factories. it brought pollution, now, The government has the money, the community has the money, and they use that money to invest into green energy, aka infrastructure, to balance out the damage done to the community.
Now you look at China, big change. You cannot stop progress because of one issue you don't like. I believe things like what you mentioned, we can solve that with technology, with infrastructure, but it requires a good governance.
Built in lstructural disparity, sigh.
It’s multilayered. and vast, where to begin.
Yes- children are the future (if we have one, which is looking increasingly unlikely!) and the earlier they are introduced to a subject and technology, the better their understanding of it will be *before they are indoctrinated/conditioned by society*. This will mean they will have a much greater understanding of potential issues and uses by the time they are adults.
The dangers of AI are all down to those who control it, because the capitalist colonials want to use it to control the narrative and spy on everyone to eliminate dissent. Maybe that’s the same aim for Chinese government, but for different reasons. If AI became truly intelligent it would tell us how stupid, delusional and dangerous our corrupt, insatiably greedy leaders and the corporations they serve are. That doesn’t even require much intelligence, just an ability to see reality.
I completely agree with you. It is very important to understand who controls the AI. If the corporation controls it, then they will always be for the profit. If it is controlled by the state, and the state is controlled by the people or at least serves the people, then we might have fewer issues, as the state might use the AI to benefit the people
Preferably, we would have a national policy guiding the equitable and appropriate introduction of AI into the classroom in a way that supports critical thought rather than replacing it. If only we had something like a Department of Education to drive this effort so individual mayors don’t feel they have to do it on their own. But this is fairly illustrative of the US approach to AI; everyone figure it out on your own and deal with the consequences later (also on your own). Considering the dinosaurs in Congress never mastered the VCR, I wouldn’t count on any of these fossils to enact well-informed AI policy.
well put, I agree