3 ms·
I think the risk is much higher with regards to how people use it and much less that it becomes some sudden super intelligent monster. AI doesn’t have to be rat
by trescenzi 2y ago
I think the risk is much higher with regards to how people use it and much less that it becomes some sudden super intelligent monster. AI doesn’t have to be rational or intelligent to cause massive amounts of damage it just has to be put in charge of dangerous enough systems. Or more pernicious you give it the power to make health care or employment decisions.
It seems silly to me the idea of risk is all concentrated around the runaway intelligence scenario. While that might be possible there is real risk today in how we use these systems.
- mrandish 2y agoI agree with what you've said. Personally, I have no doubt that, like any powerful new technology, AI will be used for all kinds of negative and annoying things as well as beneficial things. This is what I meant by "disruptive" in my GP. However, I also think that society will adapt to address these disruptions just like we have in the past.
- nradov 2y agoWe have had software making healthcare decisions for decades in areas like ECG pattern analysis, clinical decision support, medication administration, insurance claims processing, etc. Occasionally software defects or usability flaws lead to patient harm but mostly they work pretty well. There's no evidence that using AI to supplement existing deterministic algorithms will make things worse, it's just a lot of uninformed and unscientific fearmongering.
- trescenzi 2y agoI’m not trying to say it is a problem, more that it could be a problem. The fear mongering around an AI apocalypse is silly. Concern around bugs in real software making minor but real decisions however are warranted. Just as we try to reduce human error so should we try to reduce algorithmic error.