> A question to make sure we're on the same page (though I may forget to reply as this thread is no longer in my first page): https://www.hnreplies.com/ https:

> A question to make sure we're on the same page (though I may forget to reply as this thread is no longer in my first page): https://www.hnreplies.com/ https://www.hnreplies.com/ > Do you mean, for example, that AI can help us make new vaccines really fast, so even synthetic pandemics are not a huge risk? I'm sure they can, if they can also help someone make a disease or virus, but more that I this the setup required to make something like that successfully, even with an AI, likely is more than what the average home lab has. Can someone create something? Sure. Can they iteratively test is and see how it works to iron out the bugs? I think that's likely much more complicated, requires some additional infrastructure, and is something that can be looked for an tracked, and AI will probably excel at finding the signal in the noise for things like that. > So, for the sake of a thought experiment ... are nevertheless harming artist commissions. For the record, I meant to say "Even the autistic savant type versions we have now seem to be causing some level of this." and I don't really disagree with what you're saying here, so I think we're in almost complete agreement on this. > The counterpoint is, this took billions of years of parallel development, and even then might have been a fluke. The counterargument to that is that natural selection seems to work on much larger timescales for any sort of species with intelligence. Intelligence seems to be a trait most useful for long lived organisms, since it's costly and requires a long time for organisms to learn from their environment enough to make it worth while, so seems mostly limited to larger and longer lived organisms, causing adaptations to take relatively longer. Intelligence is just one tool in the toolbox. AI and increases in AI are not a natural process, but directed action, and on a scale where the time between generations seems to be shortening. That shortening for now might be because we're still tapping the low-hanging fruit of advances to make, but it's also limited by business needs because of the systems in which it operates. The "rogue AI decides to advance itself" may not necessarily need to operate within that system in some respects, either because it's beyond that system already or (more likely, in my opinion) it can just take a few percentages of resources lost to the black market every year to hide itself until it's too late. Just cybercrime is $10 billion annually, and that's up with 14% jump. Would anyone really know by who if that grew by another billion or two? That would be a lot of resources.