4 ms·

Not sure about that. Billionare Capitalists live in this world too. They might cause harm, sure, but that harm generally takes predictable form and is of fini

by nullc 1y ago

Not sure about that. Billionare Capitalists live in this world too. They might cause harm, sure, but that harm generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude. AI behavior on the other hand can cause under-informed users to do crazy things that no one would ever want. The form of the harm is less predictable, the magnitude isn't limited by anything except the user's ability and skepticism. Imagine whatever US president you think is least competent talking to ChatGPT. If their conversation ventures into discussion of a Big Red Switch That Ends The World, it's going to eventually advise on all the reasons the button should be pushed, because that's exactly what would happen in the mountains of narrative material the LLM has been trained on. Hopefully there is no end the world button and even the worst US president isn't going to push it because ChatGPT said it was a good idea. ... But you get the idea, and there absolutely are people leaving their families and doing all manner of crazy stuff because they accidentally prompted the AI into writing fiction starting them and the AI is advising them to live the life of a fictional character. I think AI doomers have it all wrong, AI risk to the extent it exists isn't from any kind of super-intelligence, it's significantly from super-insanity. The AI doesn't need any kind of super-human persuasion, turns out vastly _sub_-human persuasion is more than enough for many. Wealthy people abusing a new communications channel to influence the public isn't a new risk, it's a risk as old as time. It's not irrelevant, by any means, but we do have a long history of dealing with it.

tines 1y ago
> I think AI doomers have it all wrong, AI risk to the extent it exists isn't from any kind of super-intelligence, it's significantly from super-insanity. The AI doesn't need any kind of super-human persuasion, turns out vastly _sub_-human persuasion is more than enough for many. Totally agree. We have a level of technology today that is enough to ruin the world. We don’t need to look any further for the threat to our souls.
Dracophoenix 1y ago
> AI behavior on the other hand can cause under-informed users to do crazy things that no one would ever want. The form of the harm is less predictable, the magnitude isn't limited by anything except the user's ability and skepticism. One could say the same of the printing press.
- tines 1y ago
  Not at all. Quantity has a quality all its own.
k310 1y ago
I never proposed to either a chatbot or a billionaire [0] Who says that the president isn't already a chatbot, himself? [1] Think about this article. Enjoy. [0] https://people.com/man-proposed-to-his-ai-chatbot-girlfriend-11757334 https://people.com/man-proposed-to-his-ai-chatbot-girlfriend... [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/29/the-hallucinating-chatgpt-presidency/ https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/29/the-hallucinating-chatgp...
guappa 1y ago
> Not sure about that. Billionare Capitalists live in this world too. They might cause harm, sure, but that harm generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude. They don't really think that way. See Trump defunding medical research. Capitalists need medical care too, but they think quarterly.
- nullc 1y ago
  Exactly how and which medical research is funded is a thing that reasonable and well informed people can debate-- particularly since the US taxpayer funds medical research at greater levels than our European peers that are so often cited has having enlightened public policy on the subject of health care.
  - guappa 1y ago
    There is no correlation between your comment and what actually happened.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  > See Trump defunding medical research. Capitalists need medical care too, but they think quarterly. You're right about the defunding of research - it's loudly proclaimed as a way to save money. You're also right that the long term effects would indeed cost a lot more but I would add only if the current social contract is kept in place. As I see it, the chainsaw brandishing is really aimed at the latter, the former is just for show. Redefining the social contract appears to be the endgame here, in that case, the thinking goes much further than quarterly.
  - guappa 1y ago
    But not that deep… because if 99.999% of the people can't afford a surgeon we will just have fewer surgeons. And as it is, for some procedures, there's like just 1 or 2 people in the world who can perform them. Take away 99.99999% of their customers and there will be nobody who can perform them instead. So quality of care will decrease (to a much lesser extent) for rich people as well. Do you think they accounted for that? I doubt it.
bigbadfeline 1y ago
> Not sure about that. Billionare Capitalists live in this world too. They do, alright. I mean they do live in their world, we also live in their world. >They might cause harm, sure, but that harm generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude. "Harm of finite magnitude" extends up to the boundaries of infinity. No mortal can cause infinite harm, so the limitation you offer... just isn't. > Wealthy people abusing a new communications channel to influence the public isn't a new risk, it's a risk as old as time. It's not irrelevant, by any means, but we do have a long history of dealing with it. The "long history of dealing with" media monopolization is a long history of defeats of the common man - press, radio, tv, internet - were all subjugated by monopolistic interests. And you think that's somehow good for the subjugated? > AI behavior on the other hand can cause under-informed users to do crazy things that no one would ever want. The form of the harm is less predictable, the magnitude isn't limited by anything except the user's ability and skepticism. Ah, that was it, the little people are way too dangerous and should be put in shackles for their own good. The big bosses, on the other hand, can only do harm that "generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude". That's very soothing and all but unfortunately, both history and logic lead to the exact opposite conclusion. I'm still amused by the bold claims you make - according to you, people of unlimited power and means can only do harm of finite magnitude, while little people of no power and no means are very scary and unpredictable indeed... That could only be the worldview of the former imposed on the latter.

by nullc 1y ago

tines 1y ago

> I think AI doomers have it all wrong, AI risk to the extent it exists isn't from any kind of super-intelligence, it's significantly from super-insanity. The AI doesn't need any kind of super-human persuasion, turns out vastly _sub_-human persuasion is more than enough for many. Totally agree. We have a level of technology today that is enough to ruin the world. We don’t need to look any further for the threat to our souls.

Dracophoenix 1y ago

> AI behavior on the other hand can cause under-informed users to do crazy things that no one would ever want. The form of the harm is less predictable, the magnitude isn't limited by anything except the user's ability and skepticism. One could say the same of the printing press.

tines 1y ago
Not at all. Quantity has a quality all its own.

k310 1y ago

I never proposed to either a chatbot or a billionaire [0] Who says that the president isn't already a chatbot, himself? [1] Think about this article. Enjoy. [0] https://people.com/man-proposed-to-his-ai-chatbot-girlfriend-11757334 https://people.com/man-proposed-to-his-ai-chatbot-girlfriend... [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/29/the-hallucinating-chatgpt-presidency/ https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/29/the-hallucinating-chatgp...

guappa 1y ago

> Not sure about that. Billionare Capitalists live in this world too. They might cause harm, sure, but that harm generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude. They don't really think that way. See Trump defunding medical research. Capitalists need medical care too, but they think quarterly.

nullc 1y ago
Exactly how and which medical research is funded is a thing that reasonable and well informed people can debate-- particularly since the US taxpayer funds medical research at greater levels than our European peers that are so often cited has having enlightened public policy on the subject of health care.
- guappa 1y ago
  There is no correlation between your comment and what actually happened.
bigbadfeline 1y ago
> See Trump defunding medical research. Capitalists need medical care too, but they think quarterly. You're right about the defunding of research - it's loudly proclaimed as a way to save money. You're also right that the long term effects would indeed cost a lot more but I would add only if the current social contract is kept in place. As I see it, the chainsaw brandishing is really aimed at the latter, the former is just for show. Redefining the social contract appears to be the endgame here, in that case, the thinking goes much further than quarterly.
- guappa 1y ago
  But not that deep… because if 99.999% of the people can't afford a surgeon we will just have fewer surgeons. And as it is, for some procedures, there's like just 1 or 2 people in the world who can perform them. Take away 99.99999% of their customers and there will be nobody who can perform them instead. So quality of care will decrease (to a much lesser extent) for rich people as well. Do you think they accounted for that? I doubt it.

bigbadfeline 1y ago

> Not sure about that. Billionare Capitalists live in this world too. They do, alright. I mean they do live in their world, we also live in their world. >They might cause harm, sure, but that harm generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude. "Harm of finite magnitude" extends up to the boundaries of infinity. No mortal can cause infinite harm, so the limitation you offer... just isn't. > Wealthy people abusing a new communications channel to influence the public isn't a new risk, it's a risk as old as time. It's not irrelevant, by any means, but we do have a long history of dealing with it. The "long history of dealing with" media monopolization is a long history of defeats of the common man - press, radio, tv, internet - were all subjugated by monopolistic interests. And you think that's somehow good for the subjugated? > AI behavior on the other hand can cause under-informed users to do crazy things that no one would ever want. The form of the harm is less predictable, the magnitude isn't limited by anything except the user's ability and skepticism. Ah, that was it, the little people are way too dangerous and should be put in shackles for their own good. The big bosses, on the other hand, can only do harm that "generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude". That's very soothing and all but unfortunately, both history and logic lead to the exact opposite conclusion. I'm still amused by the bold claims you make - according to you, people of unlimited power and means can only do harm of finite magnitude, while little people of no power and no means are very scary and unpredictable indeed... That could only be the worldview of the former imposed on the latter.