The rich and powerful have hijacked progress throughout history, says Daron Acemoğlu. They did so back in the Middle Ages and also now in the age of artificial intelligence. In an interview, the MIT economist dives into the question of whether Silicon Valley is plunging humanity into destitution.
    • MxM111@kbin.social
      35·
      1 year ago

      You are making very different argument, with which I actually agree. But his point was counter argument to the statement that technology benefited us in the past. And his counter argument is bad and just wrong.

      AI is nothing like what was in the past. That should be the argument, not that in the past technology did not benefited us.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          21·
          1 year ago

          I find his statement about wind mills without any merit. I am not historian and forgive me for being lazy, but if If I ask ChatGPT4 about it, here is the answer I get:

          The invention of the windmill had a substantial impact on peasant life, particularly in medieval Europe. Before windmills, much of the labor-intensive tasks like grinding grain, pumping water, and other mechanical work were done manually or with the help of animals. The introduction of windmills automated these processes to some extent, making life easier for peasants by reducing their labor burden.

          The windmill can be considered one of the key innovations that started moving societies away from purely manual labor, allowing people to focus on other tasks and thereby improving overall quality of life. While it didn’t entirely revolutionize the peasant lifestyle overnight, it was a step towards greater efficiency and productivity.

          —-

          Yes, I understand that it is not really a proof, but at least some evidence that his statement is simply hot air.

          • theludditeEnglish
            21·
            1 year ago

            You can’t use ChatGPT to rebut an argument made by an expert who just wrote an entire book about the topic. He even explains in that article why this isn’t right, which the person you’re replying to quoted in their comment:

            Take medieval windmills, a very transformative technology. It changed the organization of textile manufacturing, but especially agriculture. But you didn’t see much improvement in the conditions of the peasants. The windmills were controlled by landowners and churches. This narrow elite collected the gains. [emphasis added] They decided who could use the windmills. They killed off competition

      • Cheeseisgood1981English
        2·
        1 year ago

        You are making very different argument,

        But they’re not. They’re making these ame point, an you just said you agreed with it. What is the point of the rest of your responses?

        Like, the person you’re responding to laid out the argument from the article, you said “nah, but if they said that I would totally be on their side”.

        Then, they pointed out how the article definitely made the point they’re saying it made and gave you a citation.

        Then, you went, " nah, fam. RE: Windmills - That’s crazy talk".

        Brother, you demonstrably said you agreed with them if they were making the point they obviously made. What are you doing?