I know I’m not the only one who has been scratching their head at all the doomsday cries around AI that have suddenly rose up. Especially as it seems as if all those calls are coming from inside the house.
Play on fear hard enough and you have people not worrying about the actual limitations of LLMs. My worry is that they shift the goalposts hard enough that instead of them asking for a bailout, the narrative becomes them being nationalized for our safety with guys like Elon sitting at the head of a new governmental department or something. Government buys all this dead weight of an industry and the tech fascists get a permanent seat at the table.
the rich are already destroying the world right now
Which is likely: Climate models and observations match with a current 3 ° C warming path, and 3°C warming would destroy our human civilization, and lot of other living beings. What climate models can’t predict is economic developments and political processes.
It’s crazy to treat all forms of threat the same. Is climate change a threat to present human civilization? Could it cause a collapse on the order of the Bronze Age Collapse? Could it potentially kill billions? Yes to all. But there are threats of devastation, and there are threats of extinction. Climate change is incapable of causing human extinction. There are just too many of us and we’re far too adaptable to too many types of environment. The absurdly worst case of climate change is that things go so bad that we end up back at hunter-gatherer levels of population and technology, with a few million survivors huddled in the high latitudes. But even that is absurdly unlikely, as we would be far better off rolling the dice with climate engineering efforts like releasing fine particulates into the upper atmosphere. That’s not a solution we want to use first, but it is quite practical, quite affordable, and would be infinitely preferable to the worst case climate scenarios.
But superintelligent AI? That is a legitimate threat of human extinction. Something like that could actually end the human race and leave no one left to rebuild.
That’s what I mean by nuance. It’s lazy thinking to just throw up your hands and say, “well, any number of things could kill us, guess they’re all the same. No use worrying about this one if the billionaires are going to do it anyway! What’s one more threat on the pile?”
Nuance matters. There are actually very few scenarios that could truly cause human extinction. Climate change can’t do it. Nuclear war can’t do it. Soil depletion and microplastic won’t do it. Declining birth rates certainly won’t do it. But truly capable AI run amok? That is something that could actually wipe out the human race. We owe our domination of this planet to the fact that we’re the smartest thing on it. And in our past we drove several other human species to extinction, outcompeting them on intelligence. Creating something more intelligent than ourselves is a genuinely suicidal act as a species. And hand-waiving it away as “well, we got billionaires doing that already!” ignores all nuance and causes us to not truly consider what is an existential threat and what is not. Nuance matters. Not all bad things are equally bad. Not all dangerous things are equally dangerous.
Basically what they want is regulations that they can write so nobody else can spin up an AI company, or run an independent AI model on their home lab for example. And yes, you can download an llm and run it on a beefy enough computer, independent from any LLM company.
Basically they want laws that develop a Monopoly so we have to rent out AI agents rather than make our own, and have that written down in law.
They also do not want say, smaller companies developing their own AI systems and instead be forced to rent from them.
Are there dangers in AI? Yes very so. Misaligned AI have done things in a lab setting that is concerning, but these regulations are calling for aren’t there to deal with that, it’s to create a monopoly because they realise that everyone from hobbyists to governments can run their own AI system if they can afford to.
It’s a privacy nightmare, but no no, these killer robots could kill us all with their killing!! Restrict their use to just us, so that the privacy issues are… all ours baby YEAH!!!
I know I’m not the only one who has been scratching their head at all the doomsday cries around AI that have suddenly rose up. Especially as it seems as if all those calls are coming from inside the house.
Play on fear hard enough and you have people not worrying about the actual limitations of LLMs. My worry is that they shift the goalposts hard enough that instead of them asking for a bailout, the narrative becomes them being nationalized for our safety with guys like Elon sitting at the head of a new governmental department or something. Government buys all this dead weight of an industry and the tech fascists get a permanent seat at the table.
They want you to think AI is going to destroy the world so that you forget that the rich are already destroying the world right now
Which is likely: Climate models and observations match with a current 3 ° C warming path, and 3°C warming would destroy our human civilization, and lot of other living beings. What climate models can’t predict is economic developments and political processes.
It is the “accusation in a mirror” pattern.
Are you incapable of nuance?
ye
https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/48304886/22312070
What nuance?
It’s crazy to treat all forms of threat the same. Is climate change a threat to present human civilization? Could it cause a collapse on the order of the Bronze Age Collapse? Could it potentially kill billions? Yes to all. But there are threats of devastation, and there are threats of extinction. Climate change is incapable of causing human extinction. There are just too many of us and we’re far too adaptable to too many types of environment. The absurdly worst case of climate change is that things go so bad that we end up back at hunter-gatherer levels of population and technology, with a few million survivors huddled in the high latitudes. But even that is absurdly unlikely, as we would be far better off rolling the dice with climate engineering efforts like releasing fine particulates into the upper atmosphere. That’s not a solution we want to use first, but it is quite practical, quite affordable, and would be infinitely preferable to the worst case climate scenarios.
But superintelligent AI? That is a legitimate threat of human extinction. Something like that could actually end the human race and leave no one left to rebuild.
That’s what I mean by nuance. It’s lazy thinking to just throw up your hands and say, “well, any number of things could kill us, guess they’re all the same. No use worrying about this one if the billionaires are going to do it anyway! What’s one more threat on the pile?”
Nuance matters. There are actually very few scenarios that could truly cause human extinction. Climate change can’t do it. Nuclear war can’t do it. Soil depletion and microplastic won’t do it. Declining birth rates certainly won’t do it. But truly capable AI run amok? That is something that could actually wipe out the human race. We owe our domination of this planet to the fact that we’re the smartest thing on it. And in our past we drove several other human species to extinction, outcompeting them on intelligence. Creating something more intelligent than ourselves is a genuinely suicidal act as a species. And hand-waiving it away as “well, we got billionaires doing that already!” ignores all nuance and causes us to not truly consider what is an existential threat and what is not. Nuance matters. Not all bad things are equally bad. Not all dangerous things are equally dangerous.
Like,… But trickle down economics?
https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/48304886/22312070
Basically what they want is regulations that they can write so nobody else can spin up an AI company, or run an independent AI model on their home lab for example. And yes, you can download an llm and run it on a beefy enough computer, independent from any LLM company.
Basically they want laws that develop a Monopoly so we have to rent out AI agents rather than make our own, and have that written down in law.
They also do not want say, smaller companies developing their own AI systems and instead be forced to rent from them.
Are there dangers in AI? Yes very so. Misaligned AI have done things in a lab setting that is concerning, but these regulations are calling for aren’t there to deal with that, it’s to create a monopoly because they realise that everyone from hobbyists to governments can run their own AI system if they can afford to.
It’s a privacy nightmare, but no no, these killer robots could kill us all with their killing!! Restrict their use to just us, so that the privacy issues are… all ours baby YEAH!!!
OTOH, this isn’t something we can just ignore either. It’s all marketing hype, until it’s not.
There is a very interesting upper echelon video with an explanation for the sudden doomsday narrative we are currently being fed.