[HN Gopher] Escape from Silicon Valley (alternative visions of c...
___________________________________________________________________
Escape from Silicon Valley (alternative visions of computation)
Author : jrepinc
Score : 54 points
Date : 2023-06-12 18:32 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (monroelab.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (monroelab.net)
| vsareto wrote:
| >the industry may indeed be building the future but contrary to
| its claims, it is not a future with human needs centered
|
| It is usually profit centered. There's exceptions of course, but
| the people working would themselves need to make a living.
| Naturally, if you had replicators and massive energy production
| it would be a different story because those things destroy
| material economics.
| bbor wrote:
| I think there's a middle ground between "let technology and
| society proceed in whatever direction the profit motive of the
| current power-brokers points" and "eliminate all scarcity
| altogether". A better society is possible IMO, without the need
| for any replicators :)
| brezelgoring wrote:
| PDFs could destroy paper-based books, alas, the publishers of
| said books took measures to artificially limit supply of
| ebooks.
|
| It'll happen to other forms of supply decoupling like
| replicators and infinite energy.
|
| I have no proof, yet I'm absolutely certain.
| bbor wrote:
| A _fantastic_ argument for eliminating capitalism ASAP - will
| have to steal this one, friend!
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| I think the author is saying that dedicated apps built from raw,
| open models (like LLaMA) are the path to building LCARS-like
| systems, not cloud megaservices like ChatGPT.
|
| And there is something to this... Certain LLaMA finetunes can be
| way more specialized and focused than what OpenAI offers at this
| time.
| richardjam73 wrote:
| I believe what they mean is. It is not the technology that is
| bad but the way large corporations are using it and how
| investors are promoting it that is bad.
| kkfx wrote:
| I suggest a game: anyone have some personal activities to do on a
| desktop like managing a bunch of files, scheduling events with a
| calendar or something similar and so on. Oh nothing special BUT
| actual widespread systems what offer?
|
| There are plenty of "calendar app(s)", but you can only ad some
| entries, no file attachments, no links to relevant mail(s), ...
| There are plenty of file managers but almost NONE offer anything
| more than files and directories approach, veeeery few allow for
| basic tagging and search the tags, just plain text search&narrow,
| no booleans or something alike for most, even less offer full
| text search inside files content and files metadata, oh and for
| all, even Google Drive, mails are not files... Long story short:
| the actual computing model offer NO INTEGRATION and BIG
| fragmentation. Initially such choice was for commercial purpose:
| building a fully integrated environment like Xerox did was
| extremely complex and do not offer much profit opportunities
| (especially when it's hard to tell what one can do with such
| system) while on contrary selling simple systems with limited
| functionalities and selling extra functionalities a bit at a
| time, allow BIG profit. But as correctly stated by the Conway's
| law after a certain timeframe all apps try to do anything since
| integration is demanded and is not possible in the present model.
|
| Since years few timid ways of integration have seen the light,
| MOSTLY only when someone have found a way to avoid giving much
| power to the end user. For instance we have seen the web 2.0 as a
| successor (aspiring, at least) of classic widget-based UIs and
| desktop environments, those have evolved to be a very complex
| WebVM [1] bootloaders and the web 2.0 is a kind of modern
| original integrated environment "document based" where anything
| can be linked, most parts can be integrated in a "newly composed
| page" and so on. Of course, in the original desktop the users do
| write the "active documents" or "the UI", extending the ones
| offered by the environment, in the web 2.0 model the user is
| practically powerless since writing personal JS/CSS etc to bend
| someone else UIs is a painful and pointless exercise, but that's
| is. End users programming is came back a little bit, again in
| limited and limiting ways with notebook UIs, "low code"
| environments and so on, since well... No point-and-click UIs can
| cover all functionalities while simple textual strings known as
| "code" can.
|
| Long story short again: no, "AI" is not an alternated vision, a
| potential totally different future. The alternate vision is the
| original desktop model, of people who have a fully integrated,
| flexible, user-programmable, environment and can communicate with
| other peers between them. The future is no need of a crappy
| website per bank to operate but simple APIs, functions the user
| can call/integrate in hes/shes own documents "notes" to operate.
| This alternative vision of computing was from the past, still
| exists a little bit in the present (see
| https://youtu.be/B6jfrrwR10k as a simple Emacs usage demo) and is
| the future, the potential future, if enough people realize it.
|
| This model do not happen mostly because those who can spread it
| do not want at all giving such power to anyone who want to learn.
| Giving it means the end of the platform goose that lays golden
| eggs, giving up any position/size advantage and so on, while most
| ignore it's existence so do not push back against alternate
| evolution.
|
| The really future model, beside the above would be the
| integration of human brain and an artificial exobrain, so we do
| not need specific UIs limited by their physical IO interfaces and
| concept model. But as per the "AI", the much hyped "neuralink"
| and alike are just very expensive toys so far, we are far behind
| the dawn of such era.
|
| [1] the monsters mostly known as browsers, that name remain for
| legacy reason ONLY
| bbor wrote:
| This is basically HN-heresy, but I was interested in this
| comment but was struggling to read it b/c of the style, so
| summarized it via ChatGPT. Very interesting thoughts, I agree
| with your end conclusion as I understand it! Especially this
| bit: _" AI" is not an alternated vision, a potential totally
| different future. The alternate vision is the original desktop
| model_
|
| _The summary:_
|
| The commenter criticizes the current computing model, stating
| that it is overly fragmented and lacks integration. They point
| out the limitations of current systems like calendar apps and
| file managers, noting their inability to link related files and
| emails or effectively search file content and metadata. They
| argue that this model was developed for commercial purposes,
| prioritizing profit over functionality, and that true
| integration is impossible in this framework.
|
| The commenter identifies a few modest efforts towards
| integration but believes these fall short as they limit the end
| user's power. They highlight the shift to web 2.0 and modern
| integrated environments where everything can be linked, but
| express disappointment at the lack of end user programming
| capabilities.
|
| They suggest an alternative vision, rooted in the original
| desktop model, where users operate in a fully integrated,
| flexible, and programmable environment. This approach allows
| users to communicate more effectively and eliminates the need
| for individual websites for various operations, such as
| banking.
|
| Finally, they speculate about a future model that integrates
| the human brain with an artificial exobrain, but dismiss
| current attempts like "neuralink" as expensive toys. They see
| potential in this idea, but believe we are far from reaching
| this level of technology.
| tedunangst wrote:
| Long essay that doesn't really say much? What if ChatGPT could be
| like LARCS? But isn't building something like LARCS the goal of
| ChatGPT? I don't follow the argument that billions of dollars
| have been wasted building _this_ , but we could have built _that_
| , which is actually the same thing?
| Animats wrote:
| > Long essay that doesn't really say much.
|
| Not long, but yes. He starts out as if he has something to say,
| but doesn't, except to plug something at "I recommend ..." So
| it's clickbait.
|
| His argument seems headed in the direction of declaring that
| advertising is bad, but he quits before he gets there. One can
| make a strong argument that advertising and finance, once
| rather small industries in terms of employment, have become
| much too large. They're supposed to be service functions for
| manufacturing and distribution. For many products, advertising
| is a significant portion of product cost. When promotional cost
| becomes a significant fraction of retail price, a company is in
| the self-promotion industry rather than offering a product.
| Perhaps tax policy should make this unprofitable. Arguably,
| it's a driver of unnecessary inflation.
|
| "Advertising", viewed broadly, includes Google and Facebook. We
| should be thinking of the advertising industry rather than the
| "tech" industry.
| bbor wrote:
| Hmm very interested to hear how you think it relates to
| advertising? It seems to be about productivity tools.
|
| Also I'd say the first part of the article is a general "the
| state of affairs sucks" kvetching that is repeated frequently
| these days in response to the AI surge, as evidenced by the
| two links. I find the use of the term "plug" in the context
| of linking those two resources a little needlessly pejorative
| lol - just illustrating his point quickly by citing existing
| literature.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| The premise, as far as I understand it, is that Star Trek
| offers a view of the future of technology that is preferrable
| to the one in Snow Crash. Preferrable because it's about the
| humans, not the machines.
|
| That's how I read the article anyway. It is a bit hastily
| written, I think.
| bbor wrote:
| Commented elsewhere but I think the point of the article is the
| focus on the creative use of the system. In his vision I think
| the "ChatGPT version of LARCS" would be something like the
| computer searching for answers to questions in its own ways,
| and if it doesn't know an answer, you're out of luck.
|
| I think it's important to distinguish b/w ChatGPT and LLMs in
| general - I think he's using the former term to describe
| monolithic corporate systems, not all LLMs.
| nologic01 wrote:
| Nothing against Star Trek metaphors but its a sign how awkward
| our internalization of the role of computation in society when
| the only wholesome vision goes back seventy years, to Douglas
| Engelbart, augmenting human intellect and collective
| intelligence.
|
| The greed and fear unleashed by the LLM algorithms is indicative
| of how dis-empowered and uninformed are vast numbers of people
| about what digital information technology can and cannot do.
|
| The wasted potential is indeed gargantuan. But power structures
| never cared about wasted potential, their only concern is
| perpetuation.
|
| The question is whether there is a threshold of tech availability
| and power where collective intelligence will emerge spontaneously
| and despite its oppression.
|
| In other words, is Wikipedia an aberration or the shape of the
| things to come?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Sci-fi has been providing alternative visions of computation
| pretty much as long as it's existed. Star-trek has more
| mainstream awareness, but Bank's _Culture_ series is barely a
| decade old (1987-2012). If you want more recent works, The
| Ancillary Justice and Murderbot Diary series ' both explore the
| relationship between AI and society, as well as scores of
| others.
|
| The important thing here is the _mainstream_ bit. The fact that
| these visions exist doesn 't really move the needle because the
| popular narrative of rogue AI is such a dominant and constantly
| reinforced cultural narrative that it drowns out anything else.
| beodbdodbsk wrote:
| meta comment: the article have zero substance besides hinting at
| the frivolity of tech today. and got instant 11 comments. people
| here are anxious to hear a why (article offers none)
| bbor wrote:
| I would say that's a subjective assessment of its substance :).
| I'd agree it's not very explicit, but I see substance.
|
| Also accepting that assessment as a premise, perhaps
| Cunningham's Law applies: _the best way to get the right answer
| on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the
| wrong answer._
| boringg wrote:
| Sounds like a video game title
| layer8 wrote:
| By the way, does anyone know why it was named LCARS (by Okuda,
| presumably)? Neither the abbreviation nor the expansion are
| particularly catchy or straightforward.
| majormajor wrote:
| > The ability to identify text via search, to summarize and read
| contents (with just enough contextual capability to be useful)
| and to output relevant results is rather close, conceptually, to
| the potential of language models. The difference between what we
| actually have - competing and discrete systems owned by
| corporations - and LCARS (besides many orders of magnitude of
| greater sophistication in the fictional system) is that LCARS is
| presented as an integrated, holistic and scoped system. LCARS'
| design is to be a library that enables access to knowledge and
| retrieves results based on queried criteria.
|
| But hasn't their been decades worth of work on just that sort of
| generic system that could work on whatever data sources you have
| _without needing to be trained on a ridiculously huge corpus of
| data_? But that nobody ever figured it out, and the "fuck it,
| train this thing on all human-generated text we can find" won out
| over trying to build search + summarization + relevant result
| generation from first principals?
|
| Sure, you can imagine that future. And people have tried to build
| it. But I haven't seen any reason to believe that it hasn't
| worked because of some sort of "too many academics captured by
| Google" issue. Google didn't even manage to be the first company
| to commercialize this alternate approach, after all!
| conradev wrote:
| > There is a potential, latent within language models and hybrid
| systems - indeed, within almost the entire menagerie of machine
| learning methods - to create a unified computational model for a
| universally useful platform. This potential is being wasted,
| indeed, suppressed as oceans of capital, talent and hardware is
| poured into privately owned things such as ChatGPT.
|
| If that is the core point of the article, then it is incredibly
| vague. All large projects are built by organized groups of
| humans, and profit-seeking companies are just one form. The
| article feels like gesticulating at the problem without outlining
| an actual solution. Building a product requires people (and the
| capital to support them), coordinated towards a common goal and
| it can't be designed by everyone in the world.
| bbor wrote:
| I don't think they're objecting to the fact that these products
| are produced privately, they're concerned that the focus is on
| large companies building huge purpose-defined systems that
| humans can just access/ask to do things. As opposed to building
| a set of linguistic tools that individuals can mix, match, and
| apply according to their preferences and personal viewpoint on
| the work.
|
| When I say it like that, it kinda sounds like a restatement of
| the Unix philosophy - _Do One Thing, and Do It Well_. Will have
| to chew on that one...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-12 23:01 UTC)