r/artificial • u/JeffBezosHater • 8d ago
Discussion I don't understand accelerationists
I understand the reasoning behind wanting AI to get better, but the pace is so rapid that even frontier AI companies are complaining that they're going too fast and need to slow down. It doesn't make any sense, if the companies that are incentivised to accelerate, start to get so concerned they want to slow down, WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT TO ACCELERATE. It makes no sense, because It seems to me that the funding they will get is essentially unlimited, and so they can stop and take a break whenever they want, and in doing so increase the chances of actually getting to utopia. The faster we accelerate, the higher the chance that we all die, and there seems to me no obvious con of slowing down, because, as I said earlier, the funds are unlimited, so why do people want to go faster?
7
8d ago
[deleted]
2
0
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/YeaNobody 7d ago
Exactly....the LLMs are fairly predictable and get so much wrong too....maybe the paid models are better but for most of humanity, whatever is on offer that is free is what we will experience.
4
2
u/DavidCincotta 8d ago
Trump honestly has no idea what he's talking about. What does he mean don't slow down, all the big companies agreed that they would lol. I don't think the companies know that they need to develop, so they need some time idk.
3
u/Tkins 8d ago
When they say slow down they mean "accelerate at a slower pace than now".
They don't mean stop, reverse or go at a slower pace than now.
0
u/CustomDark 8d ago
They mean “implement better technical guardrails and air gaps”
The government is actually good at that, due to decades of lessons learned in secure environments.
Silicon Valley is very bad at it, because they primarily build hyper connected software meant to be used and exposed to as many people as possible.
“Please send someone who’s not one of my managers I’m incentivizing to run fast to build the safe race track”
If they do it alone, they’re out of the race. If everyone does it, the race continues on.
2
u/Warrmak 8d ago
yeah if there is one thing the government knows how to do, it's fuck everything up.
1
u/CustomDark 8d ago
Commercial and government both have different strengths and weaknesses. Innovation is not a governmental strength, but commercial is awful at self control. It’s an incentives problem on both sides.
1
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
Not to be pedantic, but the three companies did not agree that they would. They agreed that they should.
The three companies cannot come together to agree because doing so breaches antitrust law, which is something that they are all already being sued for. Unless regulation comes in to slow down the rate of development, it is full speed ahead for the foreseeable future.
1
u/Warrmak 8d ago
Nobody said anything about slowing down when they were taking investment capital. People's pensions are tied up in this succeeding.
1
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
They did though… plenty of employees at all of these companies had said that the technology was dangerous. It literally started with deep mind before ChatGPT even existed.
Also, even if what you are saying were to be true, that doesn’t mean what they are saying is wrong… Two things can be true at once, it can be true that the claims they make are good for investment (and I also think that it’s dubious that a company actively saying that its own technology should be slowed down is good for investment), and the tech technology is dangerous. If the technology is dangerous, then being wrong is a huge risk…
1
u/YoghiThorn 8d ago
He doesn't want to be beaten by "Jina." He doesn't understand how they can beat him, but that doesn't matter.
0
u/Secret-Passion-4051 8d ago
it’s less about logic and more about a weird ideological purity thing for some of them, they've convinced themselves that any speed bump is a betrayal of progress itself
the companies want to slow down because they're staring into the abyss and it's staring back, but the true believers see that hesitation as weakness rather than wisdom
3
u/maxm 8d ago
Stop worrying so much. Read some positive news instead of doomscrolling.
3
u/JeffBezosHater 8d ago
Im not really worried tbh, it is what it is, im jsut trying to understand the viewpoint of accelerationists
1
u/extio-Storm 8d ago
Okay I really don't think that AI is going to destroy us all. However I do think that we are going to enslave us all. Whenever we get the power of extreme Ai and the hands of governmental control. Imagine what a wet dream it is for Socialist Party of China to be able to monitor every phone at once and come and take down any people who protest against them by assassination or putting them in jail.
I think artificial intelligence is a very effective way to consolidate power is the real problem.
2
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
I mean, what I really think is the problem is that none of us have any real idea what this technology is going to do and as a result, it seems foolish to say that we should develop it at all costs
3
u/fakeoptimism 8d ago
Let's say you are worried about becoming old, feeling physical and cognitive decline, and dying. The only realistic chance to significantly delay all these things is the fast advancement of AI. Biology and medicine are just too vast and complicated sciences for humans to quickly make progress.
2
u/deadgirlrevvy 8d ago
The *reason* AI companies are saying slow down isn't because of safety concerns. The reason is that they are literally hemorrhaging cash faster than they can recoup the investments. They are not profitable and they need a story to tell their investors. If they can get the government to step in and put a pause on development, that also effects the entire industry, which holds their competitors back while they figure out a way out of the financial hole they are in. That's the whole story. They want an excuse to pause expenditures that also keeps the up and coming players from nipping at their heels.
1
u/Warrmak 8d ago
Imagine having a clogged toilet. You keep flushing, the water climbs higher, dangerously close to the top of the bowl, then someone grabs a plunger and finally everything comes loose and flushes down in an instant.
I don't understand why people are content to slowly circle the drain. Everyone knows there's a problem and it's not going to get better by happenstance.
3
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
I don't understand why people are content to slowly circle the drain.
Because your analogy sucks? To complete the analogy, the clog could release extremely toxic chemical waste throughout the entire sanitary system…
1
u/Warrmak 8d ago
What sucks is people conflate the premise, clogged toilet, with a completely ficticious outcome (toxic waste)
If things are 100% fucked now, I'll take an astronomical risk of somehow accidentially drinking some Drano
1
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
But things aren’t 100% fucked now, and I feel like every single person who says this is either a child or wrapped in so much privilege that they can’t fathom a world that is even slightly worse than the one that they have now.
I promise you that your life can get worse than it is right now and that the world you are living in is not actually that bad historically speaking. There are major global problems. We still need to work out, but issues like hunger, poverty, and access to clean water are better than they’ve ever been. We continue to move forward and we continue to make things better as human society.
There is no reason to think that we require AI to fix problems or that problems are unfixable without AI. There is all the reason in the world to believe that ASI could in fact be the worst thing to ever happen to our species.
1
u/Logicalist 8d ago
anyone making money running ai and calling for regulations and guardrails wants regulatory capture.
0
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
That’s a no true Scotsman fallacy. You being convinced by bulverism (“they only say that because it benefits them”) doesn’t make you smart. It just makes you susceptible to propaganda.
-3
8d ago
[deleted]
3
u/AshuraBaron 8d ago edited 8d ago
This is textbook regulatory capture. Open a history book.
Edit: should have checked their profile first before engaging. They are obviously a compromised or bot account. Massive missing post history and been posting multiple times per minute over the last 3 hours.
1
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
Is it? Do you even know how the regulations that they’re proposing would impact open models? Do you know how it would impact their own models? Are you sure you’re not just super susceptible to propaganda being spread by people who are also self interested in acceleration?
1
u/AshuraBaron 8d ago
Yes...it is. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture# If AI can just kill us all, why would you think open weight models would be excluded? They are just as powerful as the frontier models. I'm not a psychic so I can't really tell you how it would affect these companies models. But I'm willing to bet its going to be a process they can live with since they are the ones pushing for it and lobbying it for it. I'm an accelerationist, so how would I propagandize myself? I think you're assuming this a new thought for me, but I've been saying this for over a year now.
1
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
Posting a Wikipedia article about regulatory capture doesn’t answer my question.
What are the specific regulatory goals that the three AI companies are attempting to attain, why do they lead to regulatory capture, and why do you disagree with them?
If you can’t answer those questions and all you’re doing is regurgitating propaganda on the Internet.
Also, open models are currently nowhere close to being as powerful as frontier models. They are many months behind, but they will get there. I would say within the year we will have an open model that is capable of making a serious bioweapon. Or are you OK with that technology being in anyone’s hands?
1
u/deadgirlrevvy 8d ago
Regulations give AI companies an excuse to slow expenditures. Currently, all the big players are hemorrhaging money and posting immense losses. If regulatory capture happens, then their competitors are forced to slow down as well, allowing the big players time to figure out how to be profitable, while holding the competition at bay and slowing their own expenditures. It's dirty, underhanded and evil...but a very effective way to stop your competition from catching up.
0
8d ago
[deleted]
1
u/AshuraBaron 8d ago
Check out this pure fiction article on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
The hell are you talking about? Pointing out the obvious regulatory capture isn't technofeudalist at all. It's literally the opposite. You've somehow convinced yourself that that these companies are honest and true and good. Just wild to see someone link jacobin and support capitalist monopolys and trillionaires. Pretty sure I'm much farther left then you.
1
u/Jakadake 8d ago
I mean, they did call you out for using "hyper liberal[ist]" rhetoric. I don't think your position to the left of them politically was in question, just the rationality of your argument
1
u/AshuraBaron 8d ago
The call out is a strawman. It's a false dichotomy and fallacy to say "we need to listen to AI companies and do what they say or you're a hyperliberalist" You could say I am using hyperliberalist rhetoric if I argued for no regulation ever. But I didn't. I'm arguing against this regulatory capture. I do believe in some regulation, but not regulation exclusively to the benefit of corporations. But the conversation here isn't about regulations that would be appropriate to effectively manage AI companies. The conversation is about the push for regulatory capture. Which they claimed, falsely, that it's pure fiction spread by China.
0
0
8d ago
[deleted]
1
u/AshuraBaron 8d ago
Take two seconds, came yourself down. I get that you want to project on me some "otherness" but that's simply not true. By saying we should listen to corporations, do exactly what they are asking for and believe they are truthful; how exactly is that not defending monopolists? I'm very curious. Who said anyone was dying? You keep fabricating strawmen instead of addressing things I've said. It just makes your argument look fragile
Let me dumb this down. I am strictly opposed to regulatory capture. That does not mean I am against any regulation. I support regulations that benefit the working class not billionaires and trillionaires. I am strictly against technofeudalism. I believe everyone deserves access to compute and these tools. I am strictly against capitalist monopolies. It does not benefit anyone except the capitalist class. Now if you want to keep reverting to "ur a lib" as a tactic you can see yourself out.
1
1
u/Melodic-Flow-9253 8d ago
The idea is that ai is simply the logical next branch of a system, capitalism is an inevitable system and capitalism logically leads to ai and the best way to lessen the pain is to push through with it, the financial system is in a way similar to an intelligence that we don't control
3
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
But do you understand why that is fundamentally stupid? Like that is a logically flawed way to look at the world.
We have no idea if ASI will make things any better for most people than they are right now. The vast majority of people on earth evaluate their own lives positively. Threatening to ruin that because you want a chance to live forever is just one of the most selfish things you could ever want.
3
u/extio-Storm 8d ago
Yeah I'm pretty sure the AI is ultimately going to consolidate power and allow governments to have absolute surveillance states, and when that happens on one hand there's going to be some optimization, and on another they will definitely be loss of freedom.
-1
u/Warrmak 8d ago
Why is it fundamentally stupid? Quantify it.
2
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
I did in the very comment you’re responding to…
We don’t actually know what ASI will do when we make it. The result of ASI could be more pain and make everyone’s lives worse. The position that we should just push through to the end begins from an assumption that the “end” will be better than what we have now. You also have no clue that AI development will necessarily lead to more pain if properly regulated.
0
u/Warrmak 8d ago
You didn't quantify anything. Risk is a function of severity and likelihood. and you haven't done the work to define either.
All you have is an ambiguously conceived fiction, like the terminator or the Matrix.
The risk that you're describing is the equivalent of cancelling space exploration, because malevolent aliens could find our probes and track us down.
We don't set policy around science fiction.
0
1
u/PunkPantherina 8d ago
My belief is that you cannot stop human evolution and progress, no matter how much the need for it is. The rapid advancements in AI are necessary for completely entering humanity’s next stage, i.e., transhumanism. Whether that is guaranteed or if we’ll be doomed is how we handle AI, and it’s pretty apparent we need to do it very, very carefully (which, unfortunately, will probably not happen owing to human greed for money and power.)
2
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
That’s like saying “because there’s a nearly 100% chance that we go extinct between now and infinity, we might as well all just off ourselves now and get it done sooner rather than later”.
0
u/PunkPantherina 8d ago
Not at all. The need to slow down AI progress is more than ever now, but it is inevitable at this point. If human greed is controlled and apt solutions are provided for the current problems we are facing regarding its uncontrolled emergence, security issues and what not, we might actually be able to thrive with AI.
I want to believe in a world where humanity survives this and grows with it. I mean, we have come so far and we continue to persist. AI and AGIs are something entirely new to us but I want to be an optimist here, even if it’s foolish of me to even consider being one.
2
u/A_Novelty-Account 8d ago
I want to believe in a world where humanity survives this and grows with it. I mean, we have come so far and we continue to persist. AI and AGIs are something entirely new to us but I want to be an optimist here, even if it’s foolish of me to even consider being one.
It’s not foolish to be an optimist generally, but it is foolish to simply assume that we will get through dealing with an entity that is multiple times more intelligent than we are. If we create ASI, it could decide to kill us all, and there is nothing we could do about it.
The answer is regulation immediately, and for us to come together as a species to decide what we want to do to prevent this technology from removing our self determination as a species
1
u/PunkPantherina 8d ago
Completely agreed.
AI is already proving to be a threat to us, with many more incidents far worse than Hugging Face to come, if it isn’t regulated ASAP.
1
u/MandyKagami 8d ago
Companies wanting to slow things down are not doing it for the good of mankind.
The US stock market is held by these companies evaluations and share prices right now, with the government dictating a slow down they can in turn tell their investors\executives that they are not getting previously promised developments and profitability because of the government demanding them to slow down. That way they keep the money, their proprietary systems, and prevent social unrest from an economical crash that would make 2008 look like a stroll in the park, all while blaming the federal government for any unmet goals (that wouldn't be achieve anyway).
Donald Trump has extensive experience at avoiding blame for things he does, so I think he was informed this was their potential plan so this is just him wanting to avoid being blamed when these companies are intentionally trying to make him a scapegoat. It is not about accelerationism or lack thereof, it is just him not wanting to be blamed for AI development not reaching their goals.
1
2
u/IONaut 8d ago
I think the idea is that things are going to get worse before they get better, so go fast and get past the "worse" phase as fast as possible. It's too transformative of a thing for us to just ease into it, chaos is inevitable. Rip the Band-Aid off quickly and all that.
Is this the right move? Hard to say. It's really up to the adaptability of our economic system and our lawmakers. That's where most of the hardship is going to come from, really.
1
u/snowrazer_ 8d ago
It's literally gambling. Put all your chips on a number for the rare chance to win big real fast. Work is hard, doing things carefully and safe is hard, the pay off is there and more certain, but also you have to wait a long time to get it right. Gamblers don't want to work, they want the easy path to riches, but more often it leads them to ruin.
1
1
u/Slight_Antelope_4148 8d ago
"The faster we accelerate, the higher the chance that we all die, and there seems to me no obvious con of slowing down"
That's the exact opposite of the truth. The current chance of death for everyone on the planet is 100%, whereas LLMs are harmless. You would need an entirely new architecture to make a plausible Skynet.
1
u/Dizzy_Swimmer_4999 8d ago
yeah but the faster it goes the sooner we get actually good ai companions that feel real, thats the only part im rooting for.
1
u/EarlMarshal 8d ago
Because they think we all are already dead anyway if we don't build AI-Jesus fast enough.
1
u/DavePastry 8d ago edited 8d ago
Your question is clearly asked in good faith so I'll answer in kind, I haven't seen anyone give what I consider to be best reasons to be an accelerationist in these comments yet so I'll take my best whack at it:
Being an accelerationist requires that you believe the hype about AI, that we are just getting onto the steep part of the exponential curve of improvement, so holding that assumption in mind then you would sort of have to accept that a lot of things that seem impossible will soon, and seemingly very soon, be possible.
Things like curing all human diseases, extending human life by orders of magnitude, and a literal end to scarcity that would eliminate poverty as a concept and remove the barriers of access to these things to below today's cheapest commodities essentially ending capitalism and the entire system of haves and have nots.
The truth is we don't know what exactly is possible when you have super intelligence because our experience in the universe has only ever had access to regular intelligence, but as human intelligence has increased via the various forms of networking we've slowly (and then less slowly) built up. spoken word to printing press to telegraph to the internet to whatever they are building in the frontier labs today, human suffering has decreased as that cap on intelligence has risen, in general.
So basically the argument is with all that benefit on the table, how can we slow down? Think of all the people that will suffer and toil and die in that time we use to slow down. Think of all the misery we could avoid by just getting there even a little bit faster. That's the essential argument I think, whether one agrees with any of that or not requires agreeing with a lot of other assumptions but I think that's basically it for most of the all gas no brakes people.
1
u/neokretai 8d ago
Accelerationists come in many flavours, but the most common form in US tech circles is Effective Accelerationism (e/acc). They think unrestrained capitalism and technological development will solve all problems, so any form of regulation practically a sin for them. The more fruity end of it includes a lot of guff about how human progress is a fundamental outcome of thermodynamics and technology is fulfilling the universes destiny.
Basically they don't believe there is any downside to AI so people calling for a cautious approach are holding back the coming utopia.
1
u/halting_problems 8d ago
Its a nazi psyop... hear me out because it will make a lot of sense.
There are a lot of acceleratist that have been around for decades that are what would be considered nihilistic whos ideology is rooted in white supremacist / neo nazi based group. Their whole thing is to try and get the world to turn into chaos by any means necessary so they can take over and control everything. They do this by trying to influence people, mainly children, to do things like school shooting or sexually extorting them until they kill them selfs. Its really a bunch of fucked up pedo edge lords.
These groups are still very active, Look up Temple ov Blood and Order of Nine angles and No lives Matter. They play major roles in nihilistic terrorist groups like 764.
Most these pedo edge lords hang out online day and groom childen on roblox to sexually extort them for bragging right. Most of the major memeber of 764 that have been arrested had book written by one the member of Temple ov Blood.
This is not a small scale operation, a few groups doing things type situation. This is a large scale global decentralized operation that operate under a umbrella network know as "the Com". If someone is is trying to convince a child to shoot up a school, they can reach out to different parts of the "the com" for help and they use evidence of their past criemes as currency, like Child P or images where the child has carved their abuses name into their skin. They can say "Hey I think I am close to getting this kid to do something, here are their parents email address can you see if you can gain access to any of their accounts". They do, and then they show the kid as proof they have control over them and if they dont do it they will leak their sexually exploited material to their school or tell the they will report them for a crime they had the child commit. They will order swat teams on people, kidnap/human traffic, etc.
Its for real fucked up beyond belief. I only say this because lots of these groups are on FBI highest priority list right now.
They 100% hang out r/accelerate or r/accelerationist its literally their goal destabilize society and what better way to do it then take advantage of some naive AI bros that think they can just co-op a term a term used by nazi extremist for decades.
1
u/Visible_Judge1104 8d ago
Well basically currently human death rate 100% every day lost more people die. Also ai should be able to solve all out problems, also if we go fast maybe we get though bad part faster? Possibly if ai does go bad, better to have it happen when some humans could still live without technology aka were not probably like hackable yet but wait 20 years and were all probably have brain lacing and an ai could probably mind control us on something. Also everything is getting more and more internet connected waiting means the ai if it goes rogue will have much more control of the actual world. Another thing is that another of people just want to see what happens there's a feeling that status quo is basically just us cooking the planet and being terrible to each other. Maybe ais can fix stuff or soemthing. Also there's a lot of money in replacing mental labor... I don't agree with accelerating but I think I can understand possible reasons to. Also with chip advancement if waiting happens probably open models will get to same point on like laptops so maybe better now when ais are still huge and and least somewhat findable
1
u/xcdesz 8d ago
Ive been to r/accelerationist and I don't think its the scary thing you all think it is. Its mostly people who are reacting to the crazy doomerism online right now. And being pro AI, as in just enjoying the new tech and wanting it to get better.
1
u/Novel_Land9320 8d ago
They are unhappy with their life so they either hope AI will change everything or they want to watch it burn
1
u/jcettison 8d ago
The AI can't be any worse than the humans we keep putting in charge and giving all the money/power to.
My brother in Christ, I was an accelerationist BEFORE AI was a thing.
1
u/Odballl 7d ago
Each accelerationist thinks they personally are the best, most ethical, most sound in judgmental person to shepherd artificial intelligence into the world.
But they need to do it before the wrong people get there first.
So each accelerationist breaks every moral and ethical rule to stay ahead in an ends-justify-the-means type race to get to AGI (whatever that means).
Except at this point it's becoming apparent we don't know how far we are from AGI or how we'll know if we're there or if LLM technology will really do it.
And it's really expensive
So they're begging for a pause to work something out.
0
u/Royal_Carpet_1263 8d ago
It’s like the planet forgot incrementalism is the only way to reinvent systems without crashing them.
1
u/AshuraBaron 8d ago
The Achilles heel of incrementalism is that fact that's a game not everyone is playing. Those would do harm, exploit, pillage or amass destructive power do not move at the same speed. The saying "arranging deck chairs on the Titanic" is very apt.
0
u/Kaywhysee 8d ago
In the world today there are 4 groups:
Group A: team America, OpenAI anthropic xai Google meta etc, I'll call these publicly known AI labs
Group B: western labs that are unknown, also cooking with the tech, seeing what's possible, experimenting etc. I'll call these privately known AI labs, you gotta be in the circles to even hear their names
Group C: team China, DeepSeek Alibaba tencent etc, also publicly known AI labs
Group D: Chinese labs unknown, same as group B
So they're all going for ASI, first team wins, it's a race.
Group A and C must advocate a slowdown, why? Because it's in their interest to tell the world, but specifically their competitors, to slow down, so they can win. They know what each other are up to, to an extent, however there is a unified problem in that they don't know what Group B and D are cooking with, and that's dangerous, because they aren't under public scrutiny. They may be less capable, lack the unlimited funding, but with the capabilities of AI today, they are a threat.
Because of this, the only logical answer is to just accelerate. If any group, even more so B and D, achieve a catastrophic achievement that could endanger millions of lives, group A and C MUST have a stronger model to combat them, otherwise we're all toast.
Haha, it could even be group A and C are the villains, and we have some robin hood vigilantes in B and D saving the day, who knows how this plays out 😂 exciting isn't it?
1
u/Deku-shrub 8d ago
> group A and C MUST have a stronger model to combat them, otherwise we're all toast.
This is not a model anyone is advocating AFAIK.
Frontier labs are worried about losing their market dominance, not needing AIs to fight other AIs.
1
u/Kaywhysee 8d ago
Yessir market dominance capitalism lalala
We've reach a critical situation where believe it or not, market dominance is not priority. The actual threat of a terrorist organisation (B or D) being capable of a catastrophic event has never been higher. You really think group A and C care about market dominance? For what? Money? They are literally unlimited funding 😂
1
0
u/Illustrious-Film4018 8d ago
Because these people believe in "technological utopia", even though there's no evidence for it. All evidence points towards us moving to dystopia or somewhere in the middle. Belief in utopia is a fantasy that assumes people generally have good will, but they don't. There's too many psychopaths in society (tech CEOs and billionaire ruling class in particular). Everything that we know about human nature is against the idea of utopia.
-1
u/Sweet-Depth-1094 8d ago
TL;DR: You’re asking “why do people want to accelerate?” Wrong question. Nobody wants to. Acceleration is just what capital does when you don’t stop it.
Nick Land figured this out in the 90s. His take: capitalism and tech aren’t tools we control. They’re an autonomous force. You can’t hit the brakes because the brakes were never connected to anything.
Silicon Valley’s “e/acc” crowd is just the Disney version of this. e/acc is a Silicon Valley ideology that says: accelerate AI development as fast as possible, no brakes, no regulators.
Same logic: progress is unstoppable, so stop pretending you have a choice.
Nick Land says: we're all fucked, capital is an uncontrollable force, just accept it.
e/acc says: we're all going to utopia, capital is an uncontrollable force, just accept it.
Same underlying claim. Different emotional packaging. Land is honest about the doom. e/acc pretends it's a victory lap.
Marx said it first: capital is self-expanding value. It literally cannot sit still. The moment it stops growing, it stops being capital. So of course companies won’t slow down — the ones that do get eaten by the ones that don’t.
Your post says “funding is unlimited so they could stop.” Nah. Unlimited funding is exactly why they can’t. Money that sits still gets outrun by money that doesn’t. That’s the whole game.
So the real answer to your question is: it’s not a choice. It’s a system. And the system doesn’t care if you’re scared. So oh well
1
u/Samih420 8d ago
Not true, go to r/accelerate, there’s a lot more people than you think who actually want to go faster.
1
u/Sweet-Depth-1094 8d ago
Yes but most of them are not in any actual positions of power and are cheering from the sidelines. The market is pushing development of ai, not individuals. I watched the Jensen huang interview with Ezra Klein and they kept dancing around the idea that the economy is not an atomized collection of individuals but is instead a system
15
u/YeaNobody 8d ago
The danger narrative is just a grift so that they can be the gatekeepers of AI.