> Automation alone did never reduce jobs significantly.
Unless you mean "all jobs across the entire economy", this is pretty obviously false. People used to weave fabrics by hand, make screws and nails by hand, bake bread by hand. These jobs hardly exist anymore.
Of course this did not imply that all jobs disappeared and the economy collapsed. But the sense in which "AI is not replacing workers" is contingent on specific features of software development, not about automation in general.
But that suggests that if AI were to displace all programming ever, then as long as there were still some jobs, you would still consider that "AI is not replacing workers". Does that not stretch the meaning of "not replacing"?
It won't cause significant global unemployment. People would be doing some garbage work and still getting paid, instead of a desk-based white collar work.
If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them.
If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, do you really believe "nothing wrong has happened"? That I, applying an unethical condition, did nothing wrong?
If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not.
I'm not who you're arguing with, but I'd also take the opposite side of that argument.
Your analogy does seem workable, though - let's examine:
> If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them.
Yes! 100% agree. They probably have a right to ask for food in countries that protect free speech, but they have no right to have requests fulfilled.
> If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face,
Sounds great. You have the right to say no. You did say no basically, but you did make a counteroffer. (This is arguably also especially true due to free speech, though that's unrelated to our points.) Your exact counteroffer doesn't seem relevant to me, it could also just be that you'll give it for $50, or $1,000,000 and nothing changes.
He thinks it's a bad offer and gets none of your food.
> "nothing wrong has happened"?
I do think nothing wrong has happened! Is it only because you used food, which a necessity, that you think it's wrong? What if it's a PS5? Would this be ok if the asker is seeking a free PS5? Visiting a foreign country is much more like a PS5 than it is a potato.
> If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not.
That is the worst policy I could imagine since it's vague and undefined. Can one ask for a kick to the groin? An elbow to the funny bone? If you did the policymaker's job correctly you'd need to make the policy like "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s" -- that exactly creates a right to food/PS5s. Or you could make the policy "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s but one may require compensation, which may only be less than $50 in US Currency. Compensation in the form of a service or a trade may not be required."
That creates a right to pay $50 or less for food/PS5s.
Sorry, I don't know any LLMs that would argue politics without using their own heavy bias and getting caught up in trying to not harm people, I'm afraid you just hate my writing style. Maybe you don't like the inline quotes? idk. Also I can't imagine wasting the effort to have a bot debate people online if I don't care enough to do it myself.
The whole reason we have those types of employment and public accommodation laws is a special case though. In terms of employment, we prefer this to a world where black people or women can't get jobs, because jobs are necessary, or can't enter half the establishments because people witnessed that Jim Crow was a shitty and shameful situation. And I do stipulate that that doesn't mean the same as "all women have the right to a job at my company upon demand."
But why don't we also have laws criminalizing things like refusing to be friends with $SKIN_COLOR people? I think it's because it's only in those specific realms like employment and public accommodation where we have created rights. The right to shop in a place that is open to the general public is a right Black people got from a law. And the right of people to be considered for a job without regard to their membership in certain protected classes is something the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 created. There is no right of foreigners without a green card to enter in the first place - CBP can completely legally say no to anyone, so no 'counteroffer' of conditional admittance could be inappropriate. The only exception I can think of is misconduct of the officer, e.g. 'I'll admit you if you give me $10,000' or a more unsavory favor. But with that already being illegal, I don't think it is too relevant here.
> But why don't we also have laws criminalizing things like refusing to be friends with $SKIN_COLOR people? I think it's because it's only in those specific realms like employment and public accommodation where we have created rights.
Not just that, at least in my understanding of American political theory. It's because of the existing right to freedom of association. If it is criminal to refuse association, that association becomes compulsory, and thus not free.
It was the whole "Yes! 100%, totally agree" thing. I think you were just doing a rhetorical device, sorry.
> why don't we also have laws criminalizing things like refusing to be friends with $SKIN_COLOR people?
Some combination of "it would be impossible to enforce" and "laws about who can be friends with who sounds kind of crazy".
> There is no right of foreigners without a green card to enter in the first place
There is no right of black people (or any people) to get a job, either. It simply does not follow that "no counteroffer ... could be inappropriate". This is sort of my point - all the law says is "if you would offer this job to person X, only on the condition that they were white rather than black, then you must offer them the job anyway". Please note that I am not arguing about what the law says - I am arguing that the law is unethical.
Now, you say getting a job is somehow more "necessary" than, say, being friends with someone. I would argue also it's more "objective" in the sense that a job is a job, it would be silly for someone to try to argue "well, I can choose not to be friends with black people, so why can't I choose not to hire them?". This would be disingenuous - hiring people is not similar to being friends with them. So, given you agree this kind of law is ok for jobs and not ok for people's friendships, which one do you think is more similar to immigration?
> If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, do you really believe "nothing wrong has happened"? That I, applying an unethical condition, did nothing wrong?
Yes, of course nothing wrong has happened. The other party decided that the food was not worth a punch in the face. The other party is no worse off than if you had made no offer. The other party is no worse off than if you had responded to "may I have some food please" with "no".
Downthread:
> It is routine and unproblematic for laws to exist that prohibit "you can't enter this bar if you're black" or "I won't hire you because you're a woman".
This is completely irrelevant. "I will give you food, on the condition that you change your immutable characteristics" is incoherent. "You can't enter the country because you didn't submit to this violation of your privacy" is a) targeted at someone who definitionally doesn't have those constitutional protections in the US and b) not an expression of any kind of identity-group prejudice.
> "I will give you food, on the condition that you change your immutable characteristics" is incoherent.
This is a very strange failure of reading comprehension. I think you're trying to write "I will only give you food if you're white." Are you trying to say this sentence is incoherent? I admit that if you say this sentence to a black person, it is logically equivalent to "I will give you food if you change your immutable characteristics". But they are not logically equivalent in general, so your gotcha doesn't apply to my argument.
About your actual argument: a) it is obvious they don't have constitutional protections, I am not arguing about the law, this is an ethical point; b) identity-group prejudice is not the only kind of unethical behaviour. Since you mention prejudice, I think you proved my point - if the ethical standard was "nobody is materially worse off" then this kind of prejudice would just be irrelevant. If the US had a "whites only" immigration policy that would be A-OK with you, they have no obligation to let people in. If that's your ethical standard, I have nothing more to say.
> This is a very strange failure of reading comprehension. I think you're trying to write "I will only give you food if you're white."
No. I am exactly pointing out why your example, which would be analogous to "I will only give you food if you're white", is not comparable to "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face".
Anyway, you are still missing the point. You cannot cause harm to someone by offering a bad option. These are not the same kind of statement. The race-based one is not an offer. It does not involve any possibility of food being given to the black person, because the black person cannot become white. It is not comparable to the offer to be punched in the face, because the offer to be punched in the face is an offer.
> If that's your ethical standard, I have nothing more to say.
Well, by offering food for punch in the face you changed it from charity to free market transaction. Basically you gave them a chance to earn their food instead of just giving it to them. If they deem the price too high and refuse your offer then again, nothing bad happened.
Not all free market transactions are reasonable. Selling yourself into slavery is a "free market transaction" I hope you would not consider legitimate.
> Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders.
That doesn't sound relevant.
Nobody said that they were obliged to admit you, they complained that the reasons for declining admittance were unfair. Unless you think "no obligation to admit" means carte blanche to decline for any reason, and to treat you however they like?
If so, then that is unreasonable. It is a much stronger condition than "I don't have to let you in".
Yes, "no obligation to admit" means they don't have any obligation whatsoever, and that includes doing so for any reason they see fit and not having to disclose those reasons (if any) to you.
It is exactly the same as "I don't have to let you in".
For example, I do not have an obligation to let people into my house. I can choose to let them in or decline them entry. But there are certain preconditions I cannot apply. I cannot, for example, say "you may come into my house only if you murder my neighbour". That's because I'm legally bound not to induce people to commit murder. It would obviously be disingenuous to say this means I have an "obligation to admit" them.
It's the same with immigration. They actually are legally bound in certain ways - an immigration official can't assault you for instance. It's not hard to imagine them being legally bound not to search people's phones. That doesn't mean "they have to admit people".
You're confusing yourself with irrelevant analogies. You can say, "you may come into my house only if you give me your unlocked phone," and an immigration official can't assault you because there are certain protections granted to foreigners against being randomly assaulted. It's also not hard to imagine them NOT being legally bound not to search people's phones, and if you're trying to say someone's breaking the law here then it's your burden of proof.
Of course I can say that. I can say "you can't come into my house if you're black" too. The point is that it's unethical. It would be unethical for me to search your phone before you entered my house, too. This is not complicated, I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding it.
The United States does have some rides about what border agents can and can not do. They can not sucker punch you, for example. They can request to see the contents of your phone and if you refuse they can choose to refuse you admittance into the country.
It’s not a question of fairness.
For what it’s worth I’m very much in favor of immigration and people visiting the United States, but this country and all others have the right to admit or not admit whomever they choose.
I think the evidence is actually pretty strongly against them doing anything similar to "thinking". Certainly they are exhibiting some behaviour that we have traditionally only associated with thinking. But this comes along with lots of behaviour that is fundamentally opposite to thinking ("hallucination" being the major example).
It seems much more likely that they are doing some other behaviour that only sometimes resembles thinking, in the same way that when you press the middle autocomplete button on your phone keyboard it only sometimes resembles conversation.
You see, we are here observing a clash in the terminology. Hallucinations in humans is thinking, just not typical. So called "hallucinations" in LLM programs are just noise output, a garbage. This is why using anthropomorphic terms for programs is bad. Just like "thinking" or "reasoning".
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, not as restrictive as parent, but also not as wide as AI companies want us to believe. My personal opinion is that hallucinations (random noise) are a fundamental building block of what makes human thinking and creativity possible, but we have additional modes of neuroprocessing layered on top of it, which filter and modify the underlying hallucinations in a way so they become directed at a purpose. We see the opposite if the filters fail, in some non-neurotypical individuals, due to a variety of causes. We also make use of tools to optimize that filter function further by externalizing it.
The flip side of this is that fundamentally, I don't see a reason why machines could not get the same filtering capabilities over time by adjusting their architecture.
I have never in my life met a person who hallucinates in the way ChatGPT etc do. If I did, I would probably assume they were deliberately lying, or very unwell.
Is this really common behaviour? I do not recognise it. Do people lie? Certainly yes. Do people misremember, or get details incorrect? Yes. But when was the last time you saw someone, say, fabricate an entire citation in a paper? People make transcription errors, they misremember dates, and they deliberately lie. But I don't think people accidentally invent entire facts.
To me, your entire claim here comes across as "hallucination". That is, I simply do not believe that you have not experienced people accidentally inventing entire facts, and so I don't believe you are genuinely unaware of people doing it.
To be clear, I'm not arguing you've made this claim in bad faith at all.
However, going back and examining my own writing, I have more than once found claims that I'm sure I believed at the time of making them, but that I in retrospect realise I had no actual backing for, and which were for that reason effectively pure fabrication.
An enduring memory of my school days was convincing the teacher that she was wrong about a basic fact of geography. I was convinced. I had also totally made up what I told her, and provided elaborate arguments in favour of my position.
To me this is innate human behaviour that I see on a regular basis. People accidentally invent entire "facts" all the time.
Indeed. The mere fact that we ended up with the anthropomorphic term "hallucination", rather than something purely mechanistic like "glitch", indicates that there's something about this AI pattern that feels familiar.
I'm obviously not claiming that "hallucination" is an appropriate term ("delusion" or "confabulation" are probably more apt), but there is something here that is clearly not just a bug, but rather a result of thinking being applied properly but to ungrounded premises. To my eyes, reading an AIs "hallucination" is not unlike reading the writings of a human on drugs, or with a mental condition like schizophrenia, or just of an analytic philosopher taking their made up axioms all the way to an alternate universe.
Can you please also hallucinate a plausible-sounding justification for this otherwise unsubstantiated statement?
Jokes aside, we do produce plausibile sounding stuff all the time well beyond the limit of what we actually know or can prove. I think there is a continuum between formulating statements about things we don't know for sure and we can't prove, guessing details here and there to fill gaps in our memory, misremembering things that we thought we knew, and making up entire facts that sound plausible but are completely invented. Yes, llms seem to have trouble introspecting what they actually know; but it sounds more like a missing skill rather than a fundamental difference in the way they reason.
It is really not any harder to define than "freely". Presumably by "what I signed up for freely" you mean "what I signed up for without any coercion, threat of violence, etc". The people using "exploitation" here just mean that those conditions also include the implied threat of not having money to live. This is a real material condition which affects what people are prepared to agree to (even if they might be able to find a better offer by shopping around).
It is not hard to understand, and I suspect you are not trying to understand it.
This is a very silly argument. The energy expended should be justified on its own (scientific!) merits. The fact the web happened to be invented at CERN has almost nothing to do with the fact that they burn through terajoules of electricity every year.
Unless you mean "all jobs across the entire economy", this is pretty obviously false. People used to weave fabrics by hand, make screws and nails by hand, bake bread by hand. These jobs hardly exist anymore.
Of course this did not imply that all jobs disappeared and the economy collapsed. But the sense in which "AI is not replacing workers" is contingent on specific features of software development, not about automation in general.