4 ms·

> If 20% of your economy is busy throwing ordnance at someone else sounds pretty unsustainable, then you are probably right. The bigger harm Russia is putting

> If 20% of your economy is busy throwing ordnance at someone else sounds pretty unsustainable, then you are probably right. The bigger harm Russia is putting onto itself is its inability to take part in the AI race. They've left the battle over to the US and China, while the EU at least isn't idling. If they wouldn't have started the war and have at least pretended to be good friends, they could have used their vast amounts of energy resources to run huge datacenters (which they could then have used to start a war). Worst move ever made by a ruler. The US and China are both profiting from this war.

latexr 2y ago
We’re discussing a literal war, with all the death and destruction that entails, and your claim is “the bigger harm” is not wasting more money on a power hungry subpar parrot that is accelerating the dissemination of disinformation and making it harder to fight climate change with its energy consumption. We’re all doomed. Anyone who believes AI will kill us is delusional, humans are greedy and stupid enough that we’ll do it ourselves. https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
- exe34 2y ago
  > a power hungry subpar parrot You may yet live to be bitten in the gluteus maximus by said parrot.
  - latexr 2y ago
    If that happens it will not be because it became sentient and decided to cause me harm, but because some developer somewhere decided it was a good idea to tab-tab-tab their code completion without fully understanding the solution and the resulting security hole caused the system to be exploited.
    - exe34 2y ago
      no, it'll be because it's aligned with rich people's interests. robot police holding back the unwashed masses is in our near future.
      - latexr 2y ago
        Same difference. The point is that it won’t be the AI’s choice, it will be caused by human misuse of it, whether by incompetence or malice.
        exe34 2y ago
        you'll still be bitten by the parrot.
        latexr 2y ago
        Whatever. The point was clear in the first message; if you refuse to understand the idea even after multiple explanations, that’s your prerogative. Your nitpick is unproductive and boring and doesn’t advance the conversation either way, it’s just contrarian for the sake of contrarianism. I have no desire to fuel a conversation whose replies amounts to nothing more than “no, you”.
        exe34 2y ago
        that makes sense, thank you for explaining. you win.
- bargainbin 2y ago
  “It’s in your nature to destroy yourselves.” - T-800, 1995
- qwertox 2y ago
  Bigger harm than "20% of your economy is busy throwing ordnance at someone else". That comment was focusing on the economy, not on the deaths. Regarding AI, it could lead to solutions to the problems we've been creating through the industrialization.
  - II2II 2y ago
    Russia is no stranger to the relationship between the economy and death. Both wars and economic mismanagement have led to famine in Russia. As for AI, we have no proof that it will work out for the benefit of humanity. Even if we did have such proof, it would also depend upon people heeding its advice.

latexr 2y ago

We’re discussing a literal war, with all the death and destruction that entails, and your claim is “the bigger harm” is not wasting more money on a power hungry subpar parrot that is accelerating the dissemination of disinformation and making it harder to fight climate change with its energy consumption. We’re all doomed. Anyone who believes AI will kill us is delusional, humans are greedy and stupid enough that we’ll do it ourselves. https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

exe34 2y ago
> a power hungry subpar parrot You may yet live to be bitten in the gluteus maximus by said parrot.
- latexr 2y ago
  If that happens it will not be because it became sentient and decided to cause me harm, but because some developer somewhere decided it was a good idea to tab-tab-tab their code completion without fully understanding the solution and the resulting security hole caused the system to be exploited.
  - exe34 2y ago
    no, it'll be because it's aligned with rich people's interests. robot police holding back the unwashed masses is in our near future.
    - latexr 2y ago
      Same difference. The point is that it won’t be the AI’s choice, it will be caused by human misuse of it, whether by incompetence or malice.
      - exe34 2y ago
        you'll still be bitten by the parrot.
        latexr 2y ago
        Whatever. The point was clear in the first message; if you refuse to understand the idea even after multiple explanations, that’s your prerogative. Your nitpick is unproductive and boring and doesn’t advance the conversation either way, it’s just contrarian for the sake of contrarianism. I have no desire to fuel a conversation whose replies amounts to nothing more than “no, you”.
        exe34 2y ago
        that makes sense, thank you for explaining. you win.
bargainbin 2y ago
“It’s in your nature to destroy yourselves.” - T-800, 1995
qwertox 2y ago
Bigger harm than "20% of your economy is busy throwing ordnance at someone else". That comment was focusing on the economy, not on the deaths. Regarding AI, it could lead to solutions to the problems we've been creating through the industrialization.
- II2II 2y ago
  Russia is no stranger to the relationship between the economy and death. Both wars and economic mismanagement have led to famine in Russia. As for AI, we have no proof that it will work out for the benefit of humanity. Even if we did have such proof, it would also depend upon people heeding its advice.