9 ms·

Also reviewed by Cory Doctorow: https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/22/vinges-bastards/#cyberpunk-is-a-warning-not-a-suggestion https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/22/v

• cousin_it 1y ago
  The phrase "grift behind AI doomerism" suggests that either the book author or the reviewer (or both) don't have a clue. AI will cause real and huge problems.
  • _vertigo 1y ago
    I think that depends on whether your definition of “doomerism” is the same as theirs.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  • amarcheschi 1y ago
    But the main figures behind the Ai doomerism are nutjobs either applying bayesian math in a bad way or right wing extremist believing that black people are inferior for genetics reason (I know it's an overreach that doesn't represent all the population of Ai doomers, but the most important people in that sphere are represented by what I said). Furthermore, they're people without a history in academia or a specific past in philosophy. Although i do agree that investigating Ai dangers should be done, but in an academic context
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • foobiekr 1y ago
      Why is this downvoted? It’s clearly a reference to the zizians and MIRI and Bayesian nutjobs is an absolutely correct assessment.
      • hollerith 1y ago
        Keep on telling yourself that.
      • derektank 1y ago
        Stuart Russell and Geoffrey Hinton have both expressed concerns that AI could lead to human extinction and neither are nutjobs
        • amarcheschi 1y ago
          I wasn't explicitly referring to the more "sane" people expressing doubts regarding Ai. Hinton at least says that other issues in Ai should be dealt with, rather than just being an Ai doomer who only fears Ai takeover he actually realizes that there are other current issues as well At this point, how many times should we have been dead for eliezer?
          • hollerith 1y ago
            Like almost all the other doomers, Eliezer never claimed to know which generation of AIs would undergo a sudden increase in capability resulting in our extinction or some other doom, not with any specificity beyond saying that it would probably happen some time in the next few decades unless the AI project is stopped.
            • amarcheschi 1y ago
              Idk, a few years ago when chatgpt came out he was saying things like "if we're still alive in 3 years (...)" where chatgpt 3.5 was still a glorified transformer. And modern llms still are. It's the constant fear mongering that stings my nerves. And well, I'm not surprised nobody knows which generation of Ai could undergo an increase causing our extinction, it's not even sure if there could exist such a thing, let alone know which generation
              • hollerith 1y ago
  • lazzlazzlazz 1y ago
    Cars have killed millions of people. Add to that the consequences of electricity, industrialization, urbanization, and even capitalism itself. But billions and billions of people are not only better off -- living lives of outrageous luxury when measured against recent history -- but they wouldn't have existed at all. Everything good comes with tradeoffs. AI will likely also kill millions but will create and support and improve the lives of billions (if not trillions on a long enough time scale).
    • mitthrowaway2 1y ago
      That's one vision of how things play out. But I do think it's possible that AI ends up killing every last person, in which case I think "everything good comes with tradeoffs" is a bit too much of an understatement.
      • gusmally 1y ago
        Even if AI doesn't kill every last person, I think it will almost certainly increase the wealth gap. I agree that the tradeoffs will most likely not be worth it.
      • arduanika 1y ago
        Ah, so if that's what you mean by AI downsides, then you might find this useful: https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult
        • mitthrowaway2 1y ago
          I came to this conclusion on my own, so, no.
• amarcheschi 1y ago
  Yesterday I had someone here tell me timnit gebru didn't contribute to hard science She has a PhD in electrical engineering and has worked at Google before researching on Ai with a more philosophical approach
  • elefanten 1y ago
    Putting aside the nebulous notion "contribution to hard science"... She became famous for adopting a strain of strident and problematic activism, using it to attack her colleagues and making claims just as wild as some of the ones she cherry picks to critique. It's not at all surprising that she ended up an extremely divisive figure. And meanwhile, the state of the art sped far ahead of where she drew her line in the sand. It's hard to find discussion of her that isn't strongly biased in one direction or another (surely, my own comment included). In my experience (sample size 1), when she gets brought up (or involved), the quality of the discussion usually plummets.
    • amarcheschi 1y ago
      Oh, and I don't necessarily agree with all what she says, I don't want to know what happens when someone which 100% agrees with her enters the room
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]