...but I guess currently the main difference is that the dot-com boom basically was the internet. It was huge but we thought it was small.
The AI boom is small, but we think it's huge.
We think it's going to replace, invade, and take over everything all at once. It's not. The models take work to be constrained. The training data takes time to find and cleanse. The applications and use cases have to be married to good data sets and modeled to functional outcomes.
We thought the internet was just people with journals, blogs, and geocities pages... It turned out to be ebay, youtube, reddit, instagram, tiktok, Facebook, Amazon.
Right now we think AI will be in everything doing everyone's jobs ...but it will probably be a bunch of smaller tools. Translators, cancer finders, copy editors, face scanners, better security cameras, better search engines...
The applications are still uncertain, but seem kind of smaller than we first thought. Ubiquitous (probably) but not larger than life.
The dot com boom was larger than life.
But I think the biggest difference is that AI will most likely need the internet. The dot com thing WAS the internet.
"AI" is kind of subordinate, or seems smaller in some sense. It's more like lots of small changes. They'll each make life a little easier, but it will all feel separate rather than some giant face in the sky that speaks intelligence into society or controls the world.
"The arts are useless and will make you a poor stupid leftist... Do a trade" <----- type of statemet that has been doing the rounds on the far-right since at least 2014.
Yes, most major brands. They're often used in meeting rooms, lobbies, and public places (places you don't want pop-up ads that you aren't already being paid for). Not to mention that you can get LED video walls that are modular and snap together.
Your anxiety is a product of society. Society is supposed to serve human nature. We have it the other way around (human nature being forced into unnatural feeling situation to serve society).
Someone has had an incentive to teach you pretty much everything you know. You hope much of it was benevolent, but maybe the teachers were taught to use benevolence that way (by pedagogical teachers before them)... Then there's this whole thing called "The Hidden Curriculum" which is the accidental lessons burried in the structures and systems of how we learn (for instance showing up, but avoiding detention and homework are part of the Hidden Curricula of the school system, unintended lessons that we absorbed without being told to)... And then there's Labour History, which is like this secret history of workers rights that most schools won't teach, and it soon becomes obvious that teaching can have ideological and systemic purposes attached, and even hidden or subconscious back flows and subconscious effects.
Honestly, if capitalism stopped tomorrow, and we all did community planting. Were restricted on car usage, and did carbon capture techniques that were proven to work.... All en mass, globally, I suspect we could change things.
The problem is Capitalism and freemarket "progress". The endless carbon fuelled march to no where (in the name of money). A lot could be done without that humming away like nothing is wrong, but politicians want to protect Free Market Capitalism and aren't laying down reasonable restrictions.
Survey humanity, produce an agreed on level of technology and lifestyle.
We probably need to limit ourselves to housing, food, internet, and safety/defense for everyone and not much else - then slow all industries based on HOW people want to live.
So getting rid of things like, plastic toys, gizmos, extravagances. Phones wouldn't be updated as often. People would only be able to update their tech if they could meaningfully show it was necessary.
Lots of technology companies would be folded. Lots of industries would be nationalised and folded. International tourism would be greatly restricted. All the stuff we don't need basically.
People would be mostly employed in the basics: Housing, food, internet. Too far beyond that and you'd have to rely on local people/groups/makers/repair companies.
So massive degrowth, nationalization, and restrictions/regulations to the market.
Most of all, corporations would no longer count as people. In fact society should have to rely on person to person contracting. I don't really think corporations should exist becuase they become Zombies/Golems that do a lot of destructive things.
Basically degrowth, and restructuring society around degrowth.
Whoa TV producers have sex-brained politics and just want mass appeal, you don't say?
Doesn't change the fact Voyager still did better on this issue, and the article says a lot about how a boys club mentality was embedded into Enterprise.
Does the question: "Did you somehow forget 7 of 9?" read "let's limit the discussion to judging the women based on costumes alone" or say "Lets judge the character's strengths based on why TV producers had them introduced"?
No, the discussion - and even the article is about how Enterprise is claiming to be "a man's man's version of Star Trek" a "boy's club" and feel lucky they got in before Me Too happened.
So reiterating "Yeah, but TV producers really wanted Jeri Ryan to look sexy" doesn't change those facts, or the topic.
Voyager took what producers gave them, and still wrote a deeper look into gender trauma with it.
Enterprise was ridiculously "Tits out for the boys" and it was a really weird direction to go after Voyager. Like Enterprise had some dumb dumb shit, frat boy type stuff.
Characters in their underwear for quarantine, women's shirts slipping off because they were crawling around in the vent system. Stuff that didn't make sense and was played for Scooby Doo style laughs.
Depends what you mean by AI...
...but I guess currently the main difference is that the dot-com boom basically was the internet. It was huge but we thought it was small.
The AI boom is small, but we think it's huge.
We think it's going to replace, invade, and take over everything all at once. It's not. The models take work to be constrained. The training data takes time to find and cleanse. The applications and use cases have to be married to good data sets and modeled to functional outcomes.
We thought the internet was just people with journals, blogs, and geocities pages... It turned out to be ebay, youtube, reddit, instagram, tiktok, Facebook, Amazon.
Right now we think AI will be in everything doing everyone's jobs ...but it will probably be a bunch of smaller tools. Translators, cancer finders, copy editors, face scanners, better security cameras, better search engines...
The applications are still uncertain, but seem kind of smaller than we first thought. Ubiquitous (probably) but not larger than life.
The dot com boom was larger than life.
But I think the biggest difference is that AI will most likely need the internet. The dot com thing WAS the internet.
"AI" is kind of subordinate, or seems smaller in some sense. It's more like lots of small changes. They'll each make life a little easier, but it will all feel separate rather than some giant face in the sky that speaks intelligence into society or controls the world.