I think the big difference is the first public radio broadcast was in 1906, regulation started to follow in 1910. Even today you need a license to use the technology.
Machine learning (or ai) has been around for over half a century. Now that it’s more abundant in every day life they’re trying to pass laws that prohibit regulations of ai.
An argument could probably be made with automobiles, but again those early adopters were heavily regulated.
“The Locomotive Act of 1865,” better known as the “Red Flag Act.” While not technically a ban, it stipulated that, when being operated on public roads, “at least three persons are to be employed to drive or conduct a locomotive” and that one of those people must walk ahead of the vehicle waving a red flag to warn others on the road and to signal the driver when to stop. It also set the top speed on highways to 4mph, and through towns to 2mph. (link)
We can learn from the past, but I don’t think we can directly apply or simply hand-wave the fears like it’s a previous technology.
See and now it’s a productive discussion on the path forward instead of whinging about a new technology.
I can only hope regulation can come its long overdue with a lot of the technology we use it will be interesting to see what will be the impudence to move it forward.
To be clear I’m not disagreeing with anything you’ve said.
That’s a bit of a false analogy because radio never threatened to take away millions of people’s livelihoods.
A more apt comparison would be the actual Luddites during the Industrial Revolution who smashed machines because massive amounts of people were being turned off the land and their traditional economic activities were unable to compete with machine based production.
People don’t just hate AI because it’s new, they hate it because it will condemn millions of people to poverty while making a handful of rich people even more rich.
Radio destroyed a lot of jobs for musicians. Before radio, there was only live music. With radio, a single professional orchestra or big band could supply the music for everyone with a receiver. Recordings came later and destroyed more jobs. Before “talkies”, cinemas had live music. Musicians did protest against such new technologies.
People don’t just hate AI because it’s new, they hate it because it will condemn millions of people to poverty while making a handful of rich people even more rich.
Then why aren’t people talking about unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, and such things?
You’re right, every new technology displaces some jobs, but AI is on a vastly larger scale (as was industrial production technology).
As to your last question, it’s because the people controlling the narrative don’t want to pay for unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, or anything else that doesn’t immediately make them more money.
You’re right, every new technology displaces some jobs, but AI is on a vastly larger scale (as was industrial production technology).
Famously, ye olde Boomer could just walk into a factory and get a job. None of these jobs exist anymore, mostly because of automation. Of course, none of those people wrote for a living, or had access to an audience of millions. I doubt that AI will displace jobs on a vastly larger scale but it is certainly communicated on a vastly larger scale.
If you think about all these jobs that might be displaced by AI, how many of them existed in the 1950ies? Many jobs, like web designer, are new. Either these new jobs reflect the displacement of old jobs, or you need a lot more people to do more jobs. Granted, global population has grown a lot, but that’s not where these new jobs came from, right?
As to your last question, it’s because the people controlling the narrative don’t want to pay for unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, or anything else that doesn’t immediately make them more money.
Yes, the narrative is all about more money for (intellectual) property owners. That doesn’t make a lot of sense if people are worried about losing their jobs.
You need to understand there’s no going back. We can help control the path forward.
How fascist. Will Dear Leader help us know the way? Here’s what we’re “going back” to - no money for tech investment and US tech unemployment at an all time high. Control that path.
Reminder that these people existed when the radio was invented.
You can’t put everything back in Pandoras box but amid all the negative you latch on to there’s a sliver of positivity and we have to protect that.
Anyone who is anti-AI, I get it. You need to understand there’s no going back. We can help control the path forward.
I think the big difference is the first public radio broadcast was in 1906, regulation started to follow in 1910. Even today you need a license to use the technology.
Machine learning (or ai) has been around for over half a century. Now that it’s more abundant in every day life they’re trying to pass laws that prohibit regulations of ai.
An argument could probably be made with automobiles, but again those early adopters were heavily regulated.
We can learn from the past, but I don’t think we can directly apply or simply hand-wave the fears like it’s a previous technology.
See and now it’s a productive discussion on the path forward instead of whinging about a new technology.
I can only hope regulation can come its long overdue with a lot of the technology we use it will be interesting to see what will be the impudence to move it forward.
To be clear I’m not disagreeing with anything you’ve said.
That’s a bit of a false analogy because radio never threatened to take away millions of people’s livelihoods.
A more apt comparison would be the actual Luddites during the Industrial Revolution who smashed machines because massive amounts of people were being turned off the land and their traditional economic activities were unable to compete with machine based production.
People don’t just hate AI because it’s new, they hate it because it will condemn millions of people to poverty while making a handful of rich people even more rich.
Radio destroyed a lot of jobs for musicians. Before radio, there was only live music. With radio, a single professional orchestra or big band could supply the music for everyone with a receiver. Recordings came later and destroyed more jobs. Before “talkies”, cinemas had live music. Musicians did protest against such new technologies.
Then why aren’t people talking about unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, and such things?
You’re right, every new technology displaces some jobs, but AI is on a vastly larger scale (as was industrial production technology).
As to your last question, it’s because the people controlling the narrative don’t want to pay for unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, or anything else that doesn’t immediately make them more money.
Famously, ye olde Boomer could just walk into a factory and get a job. None of these jobs exist anymore, mostly because of automation. Of course, none of those people wrote for a living, or had access to an audience of millions. I doubt that AI will displace jobs on a vastly larger scale but it is certainly communicated on a vastly larger scale.
If you think about all these jobs that might be displaced by AI, how many of them existed in the 1950ies? Many jobs, like web designer, are new. Either these new jobs reflect the displacement of old jobs, or you need a lot more people to do more jobs. Granted, global population has grown a lot, but that’s not where these new jobs came from, right?
Yes, the narrative is all about more money for (intellectual) property owners. That doesn’t make a lot of sense if people are worried about losing their jobs.
Clearly, you do not.
How fascist. Will Dear Leader help us know the way? Here’s what we’re “going back” to - no money for tech investment and US tech unemployment at an all time high. Control that path.