4 ms·

> AI has risks, but in my honest to god opinion I cannot take anyone seriously who says, without any irony, that A.I poses a legitimate risk to human life such

by lb4r 3y ago

> AI has risks, but in my honest to god opinion I cannot take anyone seriously who says, without any irony, that A.I poses a legitimate risk to human life such that we would go extinct in the near future. You are probably thinking of AI as some idea of a complete autonomous being as you say that, but what about when 'simply' used as a tool by humans?

endisneigh 3y ago
Same could be said about the internet at large, no?
- lb4r 3y ago
  Are you saying that the internet at large could pose a 'legitimate risk to human life such that we would go extinct in the near future,' or do you disagree that AI, when used as a tool by humans, could pose such a risk?
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    I am saying there is no distinction. If AI is a risk to humanity, then the internet in general must be as well.
    - lb4r 3y ago
      So if there is no distinction, by your own words, can you take yourself seriously or not? That is, by your own words, both AI and the Internet either pose a risk or they both do not; 'there is no distinction.'
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        I do not think the internet, or AI in its current form, is a existential risk to humanity, no.
        lb4r 3y ago
        I think if you were referring to AI in its 'current form' all along, then most people will probably agree with you, myself included. But 20 years from now? I personally think it would be arrogant to dismiss the potential dangers.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        if we are talking about regulating something now, we must talk about capabilities now. there's no point in talking about nonexistent technology. should we also regulate teleportation? it's been done in a lab. if AI actually is a threat, then it can be regulated. it's not a threat now, period. preemptively regulating something is silly and a waste of energy and political capital.
        lb4r 3y ago
        You added the paragraph about regulation after I had written my comment to your initial post, so I was really only talking about what I initially quoted. The question about regulation is complex and something I personally have yet to make up my mind about.
  - clnq 3y ago
    In retrospective, the internet has done a lot to stifle human progress or thriving through proliferation of extremist ideas and overwhelming addictiveness. Just take the recent events alone - COVID-19 would not have been as much of a threat to humanity if some people wouldn't have built echo chambers on the internet with tremendous influence over others where they would share their unfounded conspiracy theories and miracle cures (or miracle alternatives to protecting oneself). But there is a lot more. The data collection through the internet has enabled politicians who have no clue how to lead to be elected through just saying the right things to the largest demographic they can appeal to. Total populism and appeasing the masses has always been an effective strategy for politicians, but at least they could not execute it effectively. Now, everyone with enough money can. And this definitely stifles human progress and enshrines a level of regression in our institutions. Potentially dangerous regression, especially when it involves prejudice against a group or stripping away rights, just because people talk about it in their DMs on social media and get binned into related affinity buckets for ads. Then there is the aspect of the internet creating tremendous time-wasters for a very large proportion of the population, robbing humanity of at least a million man-years of productivity a day. It is too addictive. It has also been used to facilitate genocides, severe prejudice in large populations, and other things that are extremely dangerous. High risk? Maybe not. A risk, though, for sure. Life was significantly more positive, happier and more productive before the internet. But the negative impact internet has had on our lives and human progress isn't all that it could have had. When a senile meme president gets the nuclear codes thanks in part to a funny frog picture on the internet, I think that is enough to say it poses a risk to extinction.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      without the internet more people would have died from COVID simply because the information wouldn't have been disseminated about what it is to begin with.
      - clnq 3y ago
        Most governments have been disseminating the information in many other media channels along with the internet. Aside from one or two beneficial articles I read about COVID-19 on the web, I don't think I have received any crucial information there. The internet could have been used as a tool to mobilise people against gross government negligence involved in handling COVID-19 response in many countries, but instead most critical pieces of government response were just consumed as outrage porn they were, in part, written to be. Overall, I have learned nothing useful about the pandemic from the internet, and I have been consuming a lot of what was on there, reading all the major news outlets and big forums daily like a lot of us. This is not to say that one could not possibly use internet for good in COVID-19, just that it hasn't been used that way, generally.

by lb4r 3y ago

endisneigh 3y ago

Same could be said about the internet at large, no?

lb4r 3y ago
Are you saying that the internet at large could pose a 'legitimate risk to human life such that we would go extinct in the near future,' or do you disagree that AI, when used as a tool by humans, could pose such a risk?
- endisneigh 3y ago
  I am saying there is no distinction. If AI is a risk to humanity, then the internet in general must be as well.
  - lb4r 3y ago
    So if there is no distinction, by your own words, can you take yourself seriously or not? That is, by your own words, both AI and the Internet either pose a risk or they both do not; 'there is no distinction.'
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      I do not think the internet, or AI in its current form, is a existential risk to humanity, no.
      - lb4r 3y ago
        I think if you were referring to AI in its 'current form' all along, then most people will probably agree with you, myself included. But 20 years from now? I personally think it would be arrogant to dismiss the potential dangers.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        if we are talking about regulating something now, we must talk about capabilities now. there's no point in talking about nonexistent technology. should we also regulate teleportation? it's been done in a lab. if AI actually is a threat, then it can be regulated. it's not a threat now, period. preemptively regulating something is silly and a waste of energy and political capital.
        lb4r 3y ago
        You added the paragraph about regulation after I had written my comment to your initial post, so I was really only talking about what I initially quoted. The question about regulation is complex and something I personally have yet to make up my mind about.
- clnq 3y ago
  In retrospective, the internet has done a lot to stifle human progress or thriving through proliferation of extremist ideas and overwhelming addictiveness. Just take the recent events alone - COVID-19 would not have been as much of a threat to humanity if some people wouldn't have built echo chambers on the internet with tremendous influence over others where they would share their unfounded conspiracy theories and miracle cures (or miracle alternatives to protecting oneself). But there is a lot more. The data collection through the internet has enabled politicians who have no clue how to lead to be elected through just saying the right things to the largest demographic they can appeal to. Total populism and appeasing the masses has always been an effective strategy for politicians, but at least they could not execute it effectively. Now, everyone with enough money can. And this definitely stifles human progress and enshrines a level of regression in our institutions. Potentially dangerous regression, especially when it involves prejudice against a group or stripping away rights, just because people talk about it in their DMs on social media and get binned into related affinity buckets for ads. Then there is the aspect of the internet creating tremendous time-wasters for a very large proportion of the population, robbing humanity of at least a million man-years of productivity a day. It is too addictive. It has also been used to facilitate genocides, severe prejudice in large populations, and other things that are extremely dangerous. High risk? Maybe not. A risk, though, for sure. Life was significantly more positive, happier and more productive before the internet. But the negative impact internet has had on our lives and human progress isn't all that it could have had. When a senile meme president gets the nuclear codes thanks in part to a funny frog picture on the internet, I think that is enough to say it poses a risk to extinction.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    without the internet more people would have died from COVID simply because the information wouldn't have been disseminated about what it is to begin with.
    - clnq 3y ago
      Most governments have been disseminating the information in many other media channels along with the internet. Aside from one or two beneficial articles I read about COVID-19 on the web, I don't think I have received any crucial information there. The internet could have been used as a tool to mobilise people against gross government negligence involved in handling COVID-19 response in many countries, but instead most critical pieces of government response were just consumed as outrage porn they were, in part, written to be. Overall, I have learned nothing useful about the pandemic from the internet, and I have been consuming a lot of what was on there, reading all the major news outlets and big forums daily like a lot of us. This is not to say that one could not possibly use internet for good in COVID-19, just that it hasn't been used that way, generally.