4 ms·
I don't understand these conversations at all. It's universally accepted that we've already innovated ourselves into existential peril with the nuclear bomb, an
by prohobo 4y ago
I don't understand these conversations at all. It's universally accepted that we've already innovated ourselves into existential peril with the nuclear bomb, and now the internet. Technologists who look back on history can find a lot of ways that technology has threatened us collectively.
Human beings need to accept the fact that we've been pretending that technology is just a means towards progress and problem solving. It's actually some kind of Pandora's box that gets progressively more dangerous the more we obsessively screw with it.
Not just that, but technology shapes who we are at a fundamental level. The era of AI will 100% change us into something else than we are now. It's absolutely dangerous, we probably can't even envision how that danger will manifest yet, but it's definitely there - and we're not taking it seriously, again.
As stupid as this may sound, I see an endless list of technological innovations completely transforming society and causing strange side-effects:
- The printing press brought literacy to the world, and destroyed religion in the West.
- The radio started mass broadcasting, and multiple genocides.
- Nuclear research unlocked a new era in science, and a bomb that's been terrorizing us for almost 100 years now.
- The factory brought mass production, and destroyed our ecosystems.
- etc. etc.
Basically everything that's ever "happened" was because of some new technology we made because we thought it'd just be cool and helpful - maybe even obvious. Why are we still pretending this isn't something extremely important to come to terms with? Is it just because we specifically aren't involved in it? I mean we all contributed in some way, especially anyone who used Twitter, Reddit, or GitHub in the last 5 years.
The author is absolutely right, and the only sensible thing to do is stop and figure out exactly what this new technology is and what it's implications are.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- PoignardAzur 4y ago> The author is absolutely right, and the only sensible thing to do is stop and figure out exactly what this new technology is and what it's implications are. That's not an option anybody in AI safety is seriously considering. We can't coordinate our way out of using new technologies any better than we can coordinate our way out of fossil fuels (and fossil fuels are a lot easier in some ways).
- ilaksh 4y agoIt's literally a force of nature. Everything humans have invented is. Within say 20-50 years we will enter the post-human era. That doesn't mean all humans will die, but humans that haven't effectively merged with AI will be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Within another 50-200 years it is totally possible to speculate that some AI or AI collective could invent some nanotechnology that could ingest most of the planet and transform it. Sensible in what way.. it's not going to go away.. I am trying to use it to write code now using natural language where possible, and creating a website that tech-savvy people or developers can use to generate applications based on davinci3. But I view the cause of the wars and bombs as inherent animal behavior and motivations (such as resources and hierarchy) shared with chimps and/or ants. Technology is a multiplier.