3 ms·

>"But why can’t we support ourselves with AI, the thing that automated us away…? because the technology has been hoarded by the owners of technology." The prob

by FpUser 4y ago

>"But why can’t we support ourselves with AI, the thing that automated us away…? because the technology has been hoarded by the owners of technology." The problem I think is that if for some reason AI "decides" not to support us any longer we will have lost the ability to do it ourselves. We are getting dumb I think. Obviously I have no data but I feel that back in say 70-90s wide public's ability to think and analyze was much better then now. So yes do my job and feed me but make sure I do not loose some vital skills in the process.

avgcorrection 4y ago
That was addressed in my last point (“religion”).
- FpUser 4y ago
  To me it does not look addressed at all.
- Analog24 4y ago
  No it wasn't. You have the misconception that an AI system has to achieve anthropomorphic qualities to become dangerous. ML algorithms are goal-oriented, they are optimized to maximize a specific goal. If that goal is not aligned with what a group of people want then it can become a danger to them. You seem to be dismissing the entire problem of AI alignment due to some people's belief/desire for LLMs to assume a human persona. Those people are uninformed and not the ones seriously thinking about this problem so you shouldn't use their position as a straw man.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    > You have the misconception that an AI system has to achieve anthropomorphic qualities to become dangerous. More than that. It has to achieve super-human abilities.[1] And it might also need to become self-improving, because how else could it spiral out of control, as the hysterics often complain about? (Remember: human intelligence is not self-improving.) It also needs to gain an embodiment that reaches further than server rooms. How does it do that? I guess it social-engineers the humans and then… Some extra steps? And then it gets more and more spooky. This is more science fiction than technology. [1] Or else it is no more dangerous than a human, and thus irrational to worry about (relative to what humans do to each other on a daily basis). > ML algorithms are goal-oriented, they are optimized to maximize a specific goal. The Paper Clip Machine. I’m more worried about the Profit Making Machine, Capitalism, since it is doing real harm today and not potentially next month/next year/next decade. (Oh yeah, those Paper Clip Machine philosophers kind of missed the last two hundred years of the real-life Paper Clip Machine… but what would the handmaidens of such a monstrosity have against that, to be fair.)

by FpUser 4y ago

avgcorrection 4y ago

That was addressed in my last point (“religion”).

FpUser 4y ago
To me it does not look addressed at all.
Analog24 4y ago
No it wasn't. You have the misconception that an AI system has to achieve anthropomorphic qualities to become dangerous. ML algorithms are goal-oriented, they are optimized to maximize a specific goal. If that goal is not aligned with what a group of people want then it can become a danger to them. You seem to be dismissing the entire problem of AI alignment due to some people's belief/desire for LLMs to assume a human persona. Those people are uninformed and not the ones seriously thinking about this problem so you shouldn't use their position as a straw man.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  > You have the misconception that an AI system has to achieve anthropomorphic qualities to become dangerous. More than that. It has to achieve super-human abilities.[1] And it might also need to become self-improving, because how else could it spiral out of control, as the hysterics often complain about? (Remember: human intelligence is not self-improving.) It also needs to gain an embodiment that reaches further than server rooms. How does it do that? I guess it social-engineers the humans and then… Some extra steps? And then it gets more and more spooky. This is more science fiction than technology. [1] Or else it is no more dangerous than a human, and thus irrational to worry about (relative to what humans do to each other on a daily basis). > ML algorithms are goal-oriented, they are optimized to maximize a specific goal. The Paper Clip Machine. I’m more worried about the Profit Making Machine, Capitalism, since it is doing real harm today and not potentially next month/next year/next decade. (Oh yeah, those Paper Clip Machine philosophers kind of missed the last two hundred years of the real-life Paper Clip Machine… but what would the handmaidens of such a monstrosity have against that, to be fair.)