Jaron Lanier Looks into AI's Future | AI IRL 

Misquote

They'll cost themselves a lot of money if they're not careful.

He is indeed an underrated voice, but the conversation was somehow pretty short and I would love to have watched more

What, you mean the guy who wrote a book called “Ten Reasons to Delete Your Social Media Accounts Right Now” might be less than ideal for the interests of social media companies? 😂 (Great book btw!)

The reason why you do not know him from the media is his looks. How many people like him do you usually see in the media? It's our superficiality. We want to see nice, lean people in a suit or sports outfit coming right from the hair dresser, so that's what we (usually) get to see. Google has 1M results for "Jaron Lanier" and 64M for "Bill Gates". If you take into account what I just wrote then 1:64 ratio is not that bad… if you accept a google search result count as a measurement. Someone can only be valued if what (s)he says is known to people. Now he and what he said/wrrote is not known that much becuase .

I was thinking the same. Especially given how vast the topic is and how much Lanier is covering, they did an excellent job of grabbing certain moments for further clarity or followups.

Well, in fact it is on some independent podcasts where you could find the best hosts for interviewing the smartest people, and within a much longer format.

The hosts are great actors. Lanier does well, but still gives off the vibe of someone trying to explain something to Elmo's less intelligent cousins.

Is this satire? I'm 3 mins in and the host has already interrupted him - 3:27

The hosts really pressed him on some important points. That was very impressive

Right. Overappreciated.

I remember reading an article on him in Wired forever ago. Was on my mind of late. Glad to see him still part of the conversation. He makes some truly salient points.

I agree.

You mean business had more people like him? Tech people generally just do what they're paid for.

@@ericcricket4877 Both Businesses and tech people. If there were more tech people like him, there would be more businesses that think like him (IMO).

he's a rare genius and I have followed him long enough that his speeches turn out to be extremely prophetic. He's like a hippy version of Ray Kurzweil.

The way he smoothly glided into declaring that open source = monopoly and then using Google as an example of open source demonstrated that he is not working for Google but a competitor, and no, that observation is neither correct nor accurate in any way. It was a slick try but it didn't pass muster. Google itself is not open source GNU/ Linux, Firefox, Gimp , VLC etc are open source. He avoided the real examples With his pedigree that was on purpose. So be wary...

He is a snake and should be treated as such.

Yes, he works for Microsoft@@hitmusicworldwide

Because he smiles and speaks in a friendly tone. Typical human easy to manipulate

cause he's a musician you learn how to never sound boring practicing music, its a very very useful 'hobby', it levels up every aspect of your life

If you like listening to him, I highly recommend his book, You Are Not A Robot.

Because he knows the cameras are rolling.

Yes! Just a slight correction; the book title is 'You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto' @@chrisklein9618

Same! His views are always unique and very well defined.

I think he counts on math so much and I intend to do the same in my studies.

nice! to learn there a book like this. i’ve ditched the digital socialization (other than YT i suppose) and haven’t missed it much!

I’ve read that book and subsequently deleted all my social media and I can say that that has been one of the best decisions I’ve done for myself and my well-being in a long time. I can actually see clearly, looking back and in the present, how social media has had such a negative impact on my life in many ways. I can actually look back and see how manipulated I was, how addicted I was to those platforms, how much it controlled my life and my thoughts, it’s scary to even think about now! Anyway, anytime I see someone who’s read Jaron’s book or talk about how they have deleted their social media it makes me more hopeful.

I'm a little confused by what you said.............this isn't meant as sarcasm or to be disrespectful but isn't RU-vid a form of social media, and if not why don't you think so?

I have social media, but I don't really look at it. I have one real friend. But I like things like discord cause talking to strangers, international is something special to me. Things like tiktok or insta on other hand are a mirror of the society and an indicator for how important real education is.

why were you skeptical? Are you just now learning who he is? Dude has been one of the most truly knowledgeable tech people for 30 years

@@humanbeing5300 Because plenty of knowledgeable techies are either corrupt, confused, or most often both when it comes to the real issues in ethics.

@@konberner170 we need more Jaron’s and people like him that’s for sure

@@humanbeing5300 In my view, the fact Microsoft has him is a solid +1 for them.

I have faith he’s pushing envelope from the inside.

I was at the screening of Minority Report with Jaron. And had set his virtual reality headset on my head ten years before that. And, like you, I was in the Mondo 2000 bubble.

This was written by Chat GPT?

@@realfarmerdelatorre sure reads like it

@@SR-fx5sm It does, and yet i find it to be a valuably pertinent reflection / contribution (was glad I read it).

Most of the top-of-the-leaderboard smaller language models are trained using synthetic data created by GPT-4 and have seen massive performance improvements. It’s already happening.

That struck me as weird too- but ultimately more revealing about his worldview than anything. I’m guessing he means that psychopaths like the ones at Microsoft will weaponize people’s altruism against them by acting in a zero-sum fashion. Probably because he works at Microsoft and knows the mindset well, lol. This interview was scarier

Had me confused as well. So I asked ChatGPT & its answer makes sense to me. It's up to you to dig deeper and weigh its validity, but it's a starting point to explain what you asked. Here's what it wrote: Jaron Lanier's argument about open source leading to hyper-centralization is a complex and somewhat controversial perspective. The basic idea is that while open source is intended to democratize software development by allowing everyone access to the code, in practice, it can sometimes lead to a few dominant entities controlling a technology or market. Here's a simplified breakdown of the argument: 1. Open Access to Code: Open source software (OSS) is freely available for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. This theoretically allows for a wide range of contributors and innovators. 2. Skill and Resource Disparity: In practice, though, contributing to and effectively using OSS requires significant skill, resources, and time. This means that while everyone has access to the code, not everyone is equally equipped to use it or contribute to it effectively. 3. Dominance by Few Entities: As a result, entities (like large tech companies) with abundant resources and skilled personnel can dominate the development and direction of key OSS projects. They are better equipped to contribute significant improvements, maintain the software, and build infrastructure around it. 4. Dependency and Control: This dominance can lead to a situation where a majority of the market becomes dependent on a few entities. They essentially control the technology despite its open-source nature, leading to a form of hyper-centralization. 5. Mathematical Basis: The mathematical aspect Lanier refers to might be related to network effects and power law distributions, common in digital and networked economies. In such systems, small advantages can compound over time, leading to a situation where a few players hold a disproportionate amount of power or market share. While this perspective is subject to debate, it highlights an interesting paradox in the digital economy: initiatives aimed at decentralization and democratization can sometimes inadvertently lead to increased centralization.

Btw, OpenAI started as a small open source out fit, but the road it's taking, it is showing signs of an emergent monopoly. It is well on its way to becoming Big Tech.

@@kamu747He seems to be mingling distribution of source-code with distribution of power (I think those two should be though of as separate). In linux power is centralized on Linux Tovalts. Although his project is open source he retains control over it (I think the community yields to him out of respect). Lanier's argument doesn't fully hold. There are many Linux distros. There are many browsers based on Mozilla code. OpenAI is showing signs of emergent monopoly because it abandoned its open source nature to retain power. I think when Linus Tovalts passes away I say the tower of babel syndrome will play out (due to a power vacuum) and Linux will start to fragment.

@@kamu747Its like the failure of communism. Wealth and power as two separate forces. Communist believe in common prosperity by supposedly allowing everyone to share the resources, sharing the wealth. But what communism governments end up doing is horde power. Communist countries have a large power gap between the haves and the have-nots. hence the imbalance, hence their problems. Capitalism is sorta different. Capitalism promotes hording wealth but democratic governments tend to better distribute power with the people. Share the power. Its better to have power then wealth.

A photo is never enough in a legal setting. Like all evidence it has to come with a chain of custody, i.e. we need to know how it came into existence and then into the possession of the court. That's already covered under current law.

the trouble with extreme provenance is that it is the antithesis of privacy. Do you want every single thing you ever did or said to be traceable back to you as part of a permanent record? Would you be willing to accept that anything you did online - anything - could come back to haunt you in 50 years time, in an unpredicted era of novel attitudes? It would be the end of personal freedom and of the 'right to be forgotten' - which is a little ironic, seeing as Jaron said he worked on GDPR.

@@RandomButBeautiful um... How do you get from "content creators record and certify their creations as done by them and attest to their veracity" to "every thing I ever do on the internets will be recorded"?

@@tomcraver9659 You are quoting me as quoting something that was never written. So long as you are fully at choice and do not lose your right to be forgotten, which is a real thing already encoded into the very law which Lanier has worked on..... do you understand? Waltonchain has been working for several years on provenance in global product distribution. And then there are NFTs of course which can be used to create a unique signature for a digital file. Those things already exist. As to whether there is a way to track content and potentially block it from being used to train a model, that is only going to work if it is legally required for models to declare their sources. I don't see how any of them could be incentivized to take that burden on voluntarily.

@@RandomButBeautiful Sorry, I assumed you'd realize I was paraphrasing your comment, not quoting it, just as I paraphrased my own previous comment. You seem to be talking about a bunch of things that simply aren't related to my comment, which focused on solving the "fake content" issue, not issues of privacy or being forgotten or preventing the use of content to train models.

I would argue that corporations infringe civil liberties WAY more than governments do.

​@@LeftistatthepartyIt's a joint enterprise. Companies bribe or threaten govs and govs are permissive toward corporations due monetary incentives.

Computer people have always had a blindspot when it comes to politics. They tend to be easily manipulated

"politicians not infringing upon civil liberties" is an oxymoron. Concur with your assessment, but that is a vast understatement.

He's up to his bulging eyeballs in banking mafia blood money.

He seems to be there to try to justify the closed source nature of Microsoft

Thank you for your insights, hostile Chatbot!

Not really. He seems to answer the questions.

It's called being evasive.

I agree. He seems actually not so clear making his points.

The comment you've provided touches upon a complex and nuanced aspect of business and regulatory dynamics, especially in the context of technology and AI. Regulation as a Differentiator: It's true that clear regulations can help differentiate legal from illegal operations. For businesses, especially in rapidly evolving fields like AI, having a clear regulatory framework can provide guidelines for compliance and reduce uncertainties. This helps companies navigate their operations within the bounds of the law. Legal Shielding: The statement that businesses can deflect responsibility by pointing to the law has some merit. If a company's practices are legally compliant, they can defend themselves against lawsuits by citing adherence to existing regulations. This doesn't necessarily absolve them of ethical responsibilities but does provide a legal basis for their actions. Avoidance of Penalties: Operating within the law naturally helps businesses avoid fines and legal repercussions. This is a basic principle of business operations - compliance with the law is fundamental to maintaining a company's legal and operational standing. Financial Motivations: The idea that businesses view regulation as a pathway to "make an infinite amount of money" is an oversimplification. While it's true that companies aim to maximize profits, this is a broad and not always accurate characterization of their motivations. Many businesses also consider factors like innovation, customer satisfaction, social responsibility, and long-term sustainability. Legislative Expectations: Your comment suggests a degree of cynicism about the relationship between businesses and legislators. While there are instances where companies may try to influence legislation to their advantage, it's a complex interplay. The legislative process involves multiple stakeholders, including public interest groups, industry experts, and the general public, which can counterbalance corporate interests. In conclusion, while your comment raises valid points about the motivations of businesses in seeking regulation, it's important to consider the broader context. Regulatory frameworks serve not only to define legal boundaries but also to protect consumers, promote fair competition, and ensure ethical practices. The relationship between businesses, regulation, and legislators is multifaceted and subject to various influences and checks and balances.

Another reason: regulatory capture can enable the crafting of laws that limit competition, especially from upstarts.

im frequently critical of many aspects of our society to the point that im seen as a "negative nancy" by others. hearing him equate criticism to the purist form of optimism made me learn something about myself. complacent people ("stop whining") are the real negative nancies, as they lack the imagination to see a better world than the one weve got.

"a few projects gaining disproportionate influence and dominance" -> you mean Linux or open source projects such as Kubernetes that provides a software-defined networking layer that can be used to create a cloud-agnostic network for your application? I agree we need to always think critically. This is why I am advising all coders to leave Microsoft GitHub for GitLab.

sounds like a question about what rules the movements is operating by. Of course if it is just random directionless collaboration where competing interests are allowed to absorb resources without restrictions or perserved direction regarding transparency, beneficiaries, openness and participation, this is exactly what happens. Still not an argument against open sourced organisation models for development and UBI for example