5 ms·

Everyone should be terrified. The "promise" of AI is the following: remove any kind of remaining communication between humans, because that is "inefficient", an

• anthonyskipper 2y ago
  Some of us look forward to that future where you mostly just interact with AI. The one depressing us is not turning running over our goverment to AI. The sooner we can do that the better, you can't trust humans.
  • maxehmookau 2y ago
    > Some of us look forward to that future where you mostly just interact with AI. What is it about that that appeals to you? I'm genuinely curious. A world without human interaction feels like a world I don't want to exist in.
    • cptaj 2y ago
      They expect AI bureaucracy to be more effective than human bureaucracy. I expect this to be entirely true in some cases.
    • andy_ppp 2y ago
      If you are autistic (for example) I'm guessing human interaction can be extremely difficult and very stressful and triggering. Machines are much more amenable and don't have loads of arbitrary unwritten rules the way humans do. Maybe the idea of being entrapped by bureaucracy introduced by machines will be better than the the bureaucracy introduced by humans?
      • add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
        The difference between a standard human-written algorithm and machine learning is exactly that inability to find the rules transparent, predictable, and not arbitrary.
        • andy_ppp 2y ago
          I can see this but I think humans are much more random than most LLMs - they lie, they have egos, they randomly dislike other humans and make things difficult for them. Never mind body language, networks of influence, reputation destruction and all the other things that people do to obtain power. I think LLMs are much more predictable and they will get better.
      • luxcem 2y ago
        > Machines are much more amenable and don't have loads of arbitrary unwritten rules I'm sure system prompts of the most famous LLM are just that
        • andy_ppp 2y ago
          They are not as arbitrary as body language for example.
  • itishappy 2y ago
    Can we trust AI?
    • randomdata 2y ago
      Yes, we can. But should we?
    • stego-tech 2y ago
      Define “trust”, because that singular word carries immeasurable weight. Can we trust AI to make consistent predictions from its training data? Yeah, fairly reliably. Can we trust that data to be impartial? What about the people training the model, can we trust their impartiality? What about the investors bankrolling it, can we trust them? The more you examine the picture in detail, the less I think we’re able to state it’s trustworthy.
      • frm88 2y ago
        >What about the investors bankrolling it, can we trust them? This is the crucial question. We live in capitalism and maximising profits is the most dominant axiom. Without any legislation in place anywhere in the world and AI-supported diagnosis and therapy very much already in place what would prevent the companies bankrolling the software/hardware from bricking the tool on various grounds, like payments not made, political reasons: Cory Doctorow wrote a blog-post in 2022 where John Deere bricked Ukrainian tractors [0]; or a manufacturer of respirators refused to repair the devices at the height of COVID, so that only Hackers enabled the devices to run and save human lifes? [1] [0] https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8 https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrain... [1] https://www.hackster.io/news/polish-hacker-shares-software-security-dongles-for-repairing-abandoned-medical-ventilators-7895ccc6579d https://www.hackster.io/news/polish-hacker-shares-software-s...
  • 1986 2y ago
    "You can't trust humans" but you can trust a non deterministic black box to take their place?
    • david-gpu 2y ago
      Humans already are non-deterministic black boxes, so I'm not sure I would use that comparison.
      • f1shy 2y ago
        For me they are more a gray box. That is why publicity and propaganda work.
      • epgui 2y ago
        Humans are accountable. You can sue a human.
        • david-gpu 2y ago
          And you can't sue the corporation that made an AI?
          • epgui 2y ago
            In theory yes, but good luck with that.
          • throwaway290 2y ago
            In a world where all lawyers and prosecutors use its product for professional and private purposes?
      • throwaway290 2y ago
        What's better, a non-deterministic black box or a non-deterministic black box designed by non-deterministic black boxes?
        • 2y ago
  • 015a 2y ago
    You won't receive better outcomes in this world. The people in charge will simply change what they're measuring until the outcomes look better.
  • axpvms 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • croes 2y ago
    If you don't trut humans you shouldn't trust AI-. AI is based on human input and has the same biases.
    • add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
      Minus the accountability.
  • rtkwe 2y ago
    That's still trusting humans, either the ones who created the AI and gave it it's goals/parameters or the humans that actually implement it's edicts. Can't get away from people, it's a lesson all the DAO hype squad learned quickly, fundamentally you still need people to implement the decisions.
  • rvense 2y ago
    What looks like turning things over to AI is really turning things over to the people who own the AI, which is another thing entirely.
• A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  Counterpoint: AI is actually better at communication than most humans. In fact, even an ancient (in relative terms) article found that AI bots have better bedside manner than human doctors: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/28/ai-has-better-bedside-manner-than-some-doctors-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/28/ai-has-be... Today, I expect it's not even very close. I also believe that AI diagnostics are on average more accurate than the mean human doctor's diagnostic efforts -- and can be, in principle, orders of magnitude faster/better/cheaper. As of right now, there's even less gatekeeping with AIs than there is with humans. You'll jump through a lot of hoops and pay a lot of money for an opportunity to tell a doctor of your symptoms; you can do the same thing with GPT-4o and get a reasonable response in no time at all -- at and no cost. I'd much prefer, and I would be much better served, by a capable AI "medical assistant" and open access to scans, diagnostics, and pharmaceuticals [1] over the current paradigm in the USA. [1] - Here in Croatia, I can buy whatever drugs I want, with only very narrow exceptions, OTC. There's really no "prescription" system. I can also order blood tests and scans for myself.
  • croes 2y ago
    AI is better in simulating communication but worse in understanding. >you can do the same thing with GPT-4o and get a reasonable response in no time at all -- at and no cost. Reasonable doesn't mean correct. Who is liable if it's the wrong answer?
    • A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
      "AI" is basically a vast, curated, compressed database with a powerful index. If the database reflects the current state of the art, it'll have better understanding than the majority of human practitioners. You may say it will "simulate understanding" -- but in this case the simulation would be indistinguishable from the real thing, thus it would be the real thing. (Really "indiscernible" in the philosophical sense of the word.) > Reasonable doesn't mean correct. Who is liable if it's the wrong answer? I think that you can get better accuracy than with the average human doctor. Beyond that, my own opinion is that liability should be quisque pro se.
• teeray 2y ago
  > remove any kind of remaining communication between humans, because that is "inefficient", and replace it with an AI that will mediate all human interactions I imagine that call center operators are salivating at this prospect. They can have an AI customers can yell at and it will calmly and cheerfully tell them (in a more "human-esque" way) to try rebooting their modem again, or visit the website to view their bill.
  • danudey 2y ago
    They're going to be laughing all the way to the... settlement payments? https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/02/19/what-air-canada-lost-in-remarkable-lying-ai-chatbot-case/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/02/19/what-ai...
• chubot 2y ago
  It's true, but corporate policies and insurance are already like "slow AI" They remove most of what's real in interactions I remember going for a routine checkup at Kaiser, and the doctor was literally checking boxes on her computer terminal, rather than looking, talking, listening. I dropped them after that -- it was pointless for me to go It seems like there are tons of procedures that already have to be followed, with little agency for doctors I've talked to doctors who say "well the insurance company say I should prescribe this before that, even if the other thing would be simpler". Even super highly paid doctors are sometimes just "following the rules" And more importantly they do NOT always understand the reasons for the rules. They just have to follow them --- To the people wondering about the "AI alignment problem" -- we're probably not going to solve that, because we failed to solve the easier "corporate alignment problem" It's a necessary prerequisite, but not sufficient, because AIs take corporate resources to create
  • danudey 2y ago
    > I remember going for a routine checkup at Kaiser, and the doctor was literally checking boxes on her computer terminal, rather than looking, talking, listening. This is also a doctor issue, to be clear. My primary care physician has a program he uses on his laptop; I'm not sure what program it is, but he's been using it since I started going to him around 2009 so it's definitely not something new. He goes through and checks off boxes, as you described your doctor doing, but he also listens and makes suggestions. When I have an issue, he asks all the questions and checks off the boxes, but he's also listening to the answers. When I over-explain something, he goes into detail about why that is or is not (or may or may not) be relevant to the issue. He makes suggestions based on the medicine but also on his experiences. Seasonal affective disorder? You can get a lamp, you can take vitamin D, or you can go snowboarding up above the clouds. Exercise and sunlight both. For my psych checkups (ADHD meds and antidepressants) he goes through the standard score questionnaire (which every doctor I've seen uses), then fills in the scores I got into his app. Because of that he can easily see what my scores were the last time we spoke (about once every three months), so it's easy to see if something has changed dramatically or if things are relatively consistent. It seems as though it saves a lot of time compared to, say, paper charting, and while I have seen people complain on review sites that he's just checking stuff off on a form, I don't don't feel that it's actually impacting the quality of care I get, and it's good to know that he's going through the same process each time, making notes each time, and having all that information easily accessible for my next appointment. I should probably have prefaced all this by saying I'm in Canada, and so he's not being mandated by a private insurance company to follow a list just because the bureaucracy won't pay for your treatment if he doesn't. Maybe that makes it different.
• tivert 2y ago
  > Everyone should be terrified. The "promise" of AI is the following: remove any kind of remaining communication between humans, because that is "inefficient", and replace it with an AI that will mediate all human interactions (in business and even in other areas). Kinda, that's the kind of enshittification customers/users can expect. The truly terrifying "promise" of AI is to free the ownership class from most of its need of labor. If the promise is truly realized, what labor remains will likely be so specialized and high-skill that huge numbers of people will be completely excluded from the economy. Almost all of us here are laborers, though many don't identify as such. Our society absolutely does not have the ideological foundations to accommodate mass amounts of unemployed people, especially at the top. The best outcome is "AI" hits a wall and is a flop like blockchain: really sexy demos, but ultimately falls far, far short of the hype. The worst outcome is Sam Altman builds an AGI, and he's not magnanimous enough to run soup kitchens and homeless shelters for us and our descendants, as he pursues egotistical mega-projects with his AI minions.
  • coliveira 2y ago
    > The worst outcome is Sam Altman builds an AGI Sam Altman doesn't need to build an AGI for this process to happen. Companies already demonstrate that they're satisfied with a lame AI that work just barely enough to replace most workers.
    • danudey 2y ago
      "It hallucinates facts and uses those to manufacture lies? How soon can we have it managing all of our customer interactions?"
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• Melonotromo 2y ago
  [dead]
• JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 2y ago
  Most people who are not into computers see AI as the next step of computers, and they are actively waiting for it. I think that it’s very different from a computer which is a stupid calculator that frees us from boring mechanical tasks. AI replaces our thoughts and creativity which is IMHO a thousand times worse. Its aim is to replace humans while making them us more stupid since we won’t have to think anymore.
  • coliveira 2y ago
    Yes, in the future most people will just say they don't want to think anymore because this is a task for computers, just like they nowadays don't want to do even a trivial calculation.