🧡 deimidis 💚

Comunicador Social,en el fediverso estoy en @[email protected] y @[email protected]

#Web

GPG: 2438 6C0A 348F 7618 1485 8A18 688D 2AAE 13D1 CA7A

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@alejwall @casataganskaya @marcelogantman @DiganmeRingo @daniarcucci ¿Solo en Youtube?

[Pablo Fredrikson @PeladoNerd]

https://t.co/zfFpPnJbdr

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@felipelerena Ojo que tiene guardaespaldas

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@strippel @MilagrosMiceli Hi, Christian, is there an epub version? I understand that some design will be lost, but it will be better for ereaders?
Thanks

[Daron Acemoglu @DAcemogluMIT]

A post about Pope Leo XIV's encyclical on AI. Why the Pope is right, but perhaps not right enough.

Artificial intelligence is reshaping the world in front of our eyes: how we communicate, how we access information, how we work, how income and status are distributed among us, and soon how we fight and kill each other. Yet the public conversation about AI remains stuck on the minutiae of competition between labs, or on a false dichotomy between AI as a “stochastic parrot” with no real capabilities and AI as an alien superintelligence poised to take command of humanity.

The more important questions are about what we want from AI, and whether our current mindset, institutions, and control mechanisms are equal to the task of steering it toward our welfare.

It is refreshing, then, that a bold and powerful voice has weighed into this debate: Pope Leo XIV. As an economist who has long argued that technology is a matter of choice rather than fate, I find Leo’s intervention welcome and, on most points, on target. But on the most consequential question of what AI should actually be designed to do, Leo stops short.

Secular readers may bristle at the encyclical’s opening invocation of the Tower of Babel. They would be mistaken to stop reading there. Leo goes much further than most pundits, journalists and policymakers in the United States by recognizing that what happens to AI, and hence to humanity, is a under our control. There are multiple possible paths for AI, and which one we take will have sweeping consequences. He is also ahead of many commentators when he writes forcefully and unequivocally that “technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it.”

These were the central themes of the book I wrote with Simon Johnson, Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle over Technology and Prosperity. It is heartening to hear them taken up by a voice with Leo's reach.

The Pope is also right to question the current trajectory of AI in warfare and law enforcement. What was taboo only a few years ago – AI-driven mass surveillance, algorithms selecting targets for killing – has become routine. Many in Silicon Valley are now calling openly for a new military-algorithmic complex centered on AI as an instrument of American hard power. Leo captures something deep and too often ignored: “Any technology that facilitates attacks without seeing the face of human beings lowers the moral threshold of conflict.”

His call for the “disarmament of AI” follows directly from these observations. As he explains, disarming AI means “freeing it from the mentality of ‘armed’ competition, which today is not limited simply to the military context, but is also an economic and cognitive phenomenon.” His moral clarity in stating that “there is no algorithm that can make war morally acceptable” should be a warning to technologists rushing to design new weapons of mass destruction.

Underneath these specific concerns lies a more fundamental claim: that what is technically feasible is not the same as what is good for humanity, and that the difference depends on who controls the technology and what ideology and interests guide them.

Leo edges toward what I take to be the most important point about AI's future when he observes that “while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than designing machines to work with those who work.”

But here he does not go far enough. He stops short of questioning the prevailing design philosophy of AI itself: a philosophy centered on mimicking human capabilities and automating human tasks, with the ultimate goal of artificial general intelligence (AGI) that can do everything a person can.

This philosophy rests on a mistake. It assumes that artificial intelligence and humanintelligence are fundamentally similar, and therefore machines should naturally take over whatever humans currently do. Yet these intelligences are fundamentally different.

Humans are “one-shot” learners. We form hypotheses from a few examples, mentally simulate possibilities, and refine our understanding through a social process of trial and error. This is how children learn language - imitating a few words, generalizing, and adjusting based on how others respond. We are not, however, very good at absorbing massive volumes of information or sifting through unstructured data for relevant patterns.

AI models are almost the opposite. They thrive on enormous training sets and excel at pattern recognition at scale. But they have, as yet, no genuine creativity, no real-world embodiment, and no capacity for trial-and-error learning grounded in interaction with the physical and social world.

When two things are different – you shouldn’t, and typically you couldn’t – use one to mimic the other. If you did, you would end up with suboptimal, disappointing results. It would have been a colossal mistake, and the Chicago Bulls’s legendary coach Phil Jackson would have gone down in the annals of basketball as one of the worst coaches in history, if he decided in the 1990s that because Michael Jordan was the better player, Jordan should mimic everything that Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman were doing in the team. The team went from championship to championship because these players worked together and complemented each other.

The same applies to AI and human skills.

The more productive path is complementarity – using AI to do what humans cannot, so that humans can do what they do best. An electrician aided by AI diagnostics, a nurse supported by AI in interpreting symptoms, a teacher using AI to personalize instruction for each student; these are the contours of a different AI future, one that raises rather than displaces human capability.

Optimists and industry insiders will respond that automation-first AI can still benefit everyone, provided redistributive policy keeps pace. But this argument has a poor track record. Forty years of digital automation have already concentrated gains at the top, hollowed out middle-skill work, and produced disappointing aggregate productivity growth. There is little reason to expect that an even more powerful round of automation, deployed by even more concentrated firms, will end differently. We can and must demand a different design.

The global stakes from the future of AI are even larger than those we can see around us in the United States. For the developing world, where billions still depend on the prospect of decent jobs as a path out of poverty, an automation-centric AI agenda is not merely suboptimal. It is simply transferring to foreclose the most important route to broad-based prosperity.

The biggest failing of today's AI industry is its refusal to recognize any of this. It is guided instead by an ideology of control (the industry’s own over humanity) and by a conviction that machines are uniformly better than humans.

As Leo rightly notes, this failure is enabled by the fact that a handful of companies now command the future of AI.

What we need is a combination of moral clarity and a serious, society-wide debate about what AI can do and what we want it to do. That debate must move beyond exhortation toward concrete choices: antitrust action against the dominant platforms, public investment in human-complementary AI, regulation of surveillance and autonomous weapons, and meaningful rights for workers and citizens over the data on which these systems are built.

The Pope's intervention makes such a debate a little more likely today than it was before.

It is now up to the rest of us to carry it further than he was willing to go.

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@Sietecase No creas todo lo que dicen los CEOs de la IA, están desesperados por mostrar que lo que hacen es más terrible de lo que están logrando.

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@plubanski1900 @____fedez____ Hasta que la tengan que cobrar por lo que realmente cuesta, y ahí posiblemente ya no puedas usarla, pero te podrán reemplazar fácilmente.

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@joabarrasa @____fedez____ Pero el tema es que no lo venden como lo que te soluciona las 5 cosas que no querés hacer, se impone como la única forma en la que tiene sentido hacer algo de ahora en más, y se incluye dentro de un humo en el que va a solucionar todo.

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@crypto909900 @agildominguez @JMilei No

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@aracalacana Me siento un poco menos mal de seguir pensando en ese partido de mierda

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@agdomin_X @clarincom No soy peronista. Te recomiendo que leas TRACERS IN THE DARK: The Global Hunt for the Crime Lords of Cryptocurrency , para ver que aún en la blockchain se puede llegar a deanonimizar. Pero si no lees ni la bajada de Clarín, no creo que leas un libro.

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@agdomin_X @clarincom Dijiste otra cosa en tu tuit. Ahora cambiás el tema. Igual te aclaro, las billeteras oficiales que te dejan trabajar con cryptos te suelen pedir los documentos para registrarte. Lo que hicieron fue pedirle a esas aplicaciones que les dieran los datos de las transacciones.

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@agdomin_X @clarincom Justamente la blockchain se suele usar cuando querés que toda transacción quede registrada. Confundis los registros de la blockchain con las cuentas anónimas, pero las billeteras virtuales no son necesariamente anónimas.

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@facunferreyra @romarante5228 @halconada Jajajajaja, bueno, vos seguí pensando que no le hacen caso a las encuestas. ¿Por qué le dieron de baja a Espert entonces?

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@facunferreyra @romarante5228 @halconada Espert no duró 30 segundos, lo mantuvieron todo lo que pudieron, hasta que las encuestas lo destruyeron. Sin embargo, Milei aún sigue diciendo que fue injusto.

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@facunferreyra @romarante5228 @halconada Si fuera eso solo. Están los viajes de vacaciones, algunas refacciones, etc. Todo suma bastante más de 40 mil

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@facunferreyra @romarante5228 @halconada Su declaración jurada era de ahorros por 40 mil dólares, ya se sabe que no era de antes.

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@facunferreyra @romarante5228 @halconada Y justamente se dedicó a gastarla una vez que fue funcionario.

[Juan Alonso @jotaalonso]

Lo que no se dice sobre Palantir:
1) Peter Thiel llega a la Argentina para sostener a Javier Gerardo Milei cuya imagen negativa crece como la inflación alimentaria y la canasta básica para no ser pobre en CABA.
2) Palantir está asociada al Pentágono y la CIA.
3) Después de mostrarse en Buenos Aires con el presidente, Santiago Caputo y Pablo Quirno, Peter Thiel estuvo en Chile con la ultraderecha. 4) Se trata de un proyecto de Defensa y Control de EE UU sobre el Sur de América Latina en una avanzada imperialista. Las fotos de buques de guerra en el Atlántico Sur lo demuestran. Fue por decisión del Poder Ejecutivo sin pasar por el Congreso. Los comunicados de la embajada de EU en Buenos Aires fueron, al menos, confusos. El Atlántico Sur y su plataforma continental más las 200 millas exclusivas forman parte de la soberanía nacional de la República Argentina desde el puerto hasta Tierra del Fuego, Antártida y Malvinas. Lo que debe hacer Argentina es asegurar su territorio sin injerencia extranjera de una potencia interesada en nuestros recursos naturales y energéticos.
5) Las declaraciones de un vivillo del gobierno sobre IA, empleos, trabajo y régimen esclavista sin derechos, también confirman los deseos de Palantir en su manifiesto. Porque aclaremos esto: Luis Caputo y Federico Sturzenegger están haciendo su negocio dentro del gobierno. No son anarquistas capitalistas. Son saqueadores. Proyectan sobrevivir a Milei y a su hermana Karina Elizabeth y tienen sus ahorros fuera del país.
6) El principal objetivo de Palantir es hacer dinero con la Seguridad, la Defensa y la Inteligencia de Argentina. Pero su segundo interés es lograr cambiar la cultura desde la IA y la manipulación masiva de las emociones y el sentido con los algoritmos y las plataformas digitales. En el país cae el consumo de carne vacuna pero hay más de un teléfono móvil por habitante. Ahí apuntan Peter Thiel y Alex Karp para sostener a Javier Gerardo Milei y su grupo de desquiciados.
7) La oposición debe tomar notas de la llegada de Palantir al país. No es una broma. La compañía tiene un software utilizado por el ICE y por el Ejército de Israel en Gaza y el Líbano. Peter Thiel y Alex Karp tienen una empresa que ayuda a asesinar civiles inocentes (niños, niñas, mujeres, ancianos y periodistas) en nombre de "la libertad" occidental. Milei estaba en Israel cuando llegó Thiel.
Eso tampoco puede ser analizado como una casualidad.
8) La deriva mesiánica del presidente de Argentina es peligrosa. Su alianza con lo peor de la ultraderecha israelí implica un implantación de facto de valores que no tienen nada que ver con la democracia republicana desde 1983. Para Palantir (o sea para el Pentágono) es importante que los Milei sigan destruyendo la Argentina y su modelo nuclear y soberano con ciencia propia. Hay que pedirle a Manuel Adorni los contratos con EU y no las tarjetas de crédito de Nucleoeléctrica con el payaso caro de Demian Reidel. Que dicho sea de paso ambos nunca explicaron sus roles en el lanzamiento de $LIBRA.

[🧡 deimidis 💚 @deimidis]

@martinbmn @clarincom Pero la peluquería la pagamos nosotros, qué mierda importa si fueron 20 o 200. Más rata todavía, no se pagaba ni 20 dólares.