This is why I’ll never believe the claim that AI will save humanity. It may well give the answers to “save us” but we already know the answer. We just don’t care. We’re not going to listen to AI if we don’t listen to ourselves.
I’m not sure if there is some subtext being lost, but if your point is that we should trust AI with how to ‘save us’, then why aren’t you following it right now? It’s perfectly happy to offer an answer and it will even sound very convincing. But there is no reason to think it actually has the correct answer, or even knows what the problem is.
No, my point is that even if the AI was 100% correct and gave humanity the best advice to solve all of our problems, we still wouldn’t follow it. Because we don’t want to. We live in a society that’s broken on purpose, and a lot of people want to keep it that way, and have convinced a great many people to support things against humanity’s own interest.
If an AI was provably 100% correct then I guarantee you people would listen to it.
People seek for god & other higher powers for much less reasonable logic than “a machine that is always correct no matter what”.
The reality is AI as it’s known today (generative stochastic models) can not ever reach “100% correct”, by definition of being a generative stochastic model. So you’re essentially discussing a fantasy computer that we are not close to every having IRL -> It’s not relevant.
Disagree. The AI will say things like taxing the rich more or preserve nature etc. Society won’t listen to that, or more precisely won’t follow this advice, because the deciders do not like this idea.
Yeah and it’s not 100% correct. It makes mistakes and says incorrect things all the time - thus it shouldn’t be used to govern even if it happens to agree with you on some issues.
“The AI says the thing I like on the handful of buzzword issues I tested. Let’s hand it the keys to the entire world and let stuff get nutty”
That’s not true. For less than $15k and a high electricity bill, you can train and run very powerful AI models yourself, today. And you have broad choices of which open weight model to run. And it’s easy to switch them out. No “they” in the mix at all
nor do they have extra money to pay high electricity bills NOR pay for good information feeds to feed the model
for now. “They” are just beginning the legislative process. In 20 years what will the landscape lookblike? What kinds of blocks, filters, gov reporting will be mandated?
You could always hire people to be your shipping agents and you could have your stuff sent from China to an EU country and then here. Pay the cheap china prices, pay the vat shipping from the EU country and then have it shipped to the US .
Then you pay off your people overseas every month like a subscription service fee.
I’m keen on local models but prices are getting out of hand. I insured my workstation recently for more than twice what I built it for, because it’d cost that to rebuild it with identical parts.
It could be functional and fine (and largely useless), but the issue is one of these toadies is going to make it malfunctional, and therein lies the problem.
This is why I’ll never believe the claim that AI will save humanity. It may well give the answers to “save us” but we already know the answer. We just don’t care. We’re not going to listen to AI if we don’t listen to ourselves.
It’s a language calculator. It has no intrinsic incentive to tell the truth, it just processes words.
There is no reason to trust AI’s reasoning on what could “save us” even if it offered one.
Thanks for proving my point :)
I’m not sure if there is some subtext being lost, but if your point is that we should trust AI with how to ‘save us’, then why aren’t you following it right now? It’s perfectly happy to offer an answer and it will even sound very convincing. But there is no reason to think it actually has the correct answer, or even knows what the problem is.
No, my point is that even if the AI was 100% correct and gave humanity the best advice to solve all of our problems, we still wouldn’t follow it. Because we don’t want to. We live in a society that’s broken on purpose, and a lot of people want to keep it that way, and have convinced a great many people to support things against humanity’s own interest.
If an AI was provably 100% correct then I guarantee you people would listen to it.
People seek for god & other higher powers for much less reasonable logic than “a machine that is always correct no matter what”.
The reality is AI as it’s known today (generative stochastic models) can not ever reach “100% correct”, by definition of being a generative stochastic model. So you’re essentially discussing a fantasy computer that we are not close to every having IRL -> It’s not relevant.
Disagree. The AI will say things like taxing the rich more or preserve nature etc. Society won’t listen to that, or more precisely won’t follow this advice, because the deciders do not like this idea.
Yeah and it’s not 100% correct. It makes mistakes and says incorrect things all the time - thus it shouldn’t be used to govern even if it happens to agree with you on some issues.
“The AI says the thing I like on the handful of buzzword issues I tested. Let’s hand it the keys to the entire world and let stuff get nutty”
Intelligent people will believe the most obvious nonsense sometimes; engineers are represented among young-Earth creationists for example.
Some people will even argue with regular number calculators.
The AI that they let us have will only know the information they have approved.
That’s not true. For less than $15k and a high electricity bill, you can train and run very powerful AI models yourself, today. And you have broad choices of which open weight model to run. And it’s easy to switch them out. No “they” in the mix at all
99% of people do not have 15k to spend on AI
nor do they have extra money to pay high electricity bills NOR pay for good information feeds to feed the model
for now. “They” are just beginning the legislative process. In 20 years what will the landscape lookblike? What kinds of blocks, filters, gov reporting will be mandated?
If in 20 years time having a graphics card is illegal, y’all might as well go ahead and collectively commit sudoku as a nation.
Between phones, tablets, and data centers the age of mass market affordable PC parts is fading.
Hope it rebounds but idk.
You could always hire people to be your shipping agents and you could have your stuff sent from China to an EU country and then here. Pay the cheap china prices, pay the vat shipping from the EU country and then have it shipped to the US .
Then you pay off your people overseas every month like a subscription service fee.
I’m keen on local models but prices are getting out of hand. I insured my workstation recently for more than twice what I built it for, because it’d cost that to rebuild it with identical parts.
My graphics card, which I bought used, is now worth more than the entire rest of my computer was new. This is nuts!
It could be functional and fine (and largely useless), but the issue is one of these toadies is going to make it malfunctional, and therein lies the problem.