3 ms·

I think even this argument is over-complicated. My primary argument is human nature: If you give people the lazy way to accomplish a goal, they will do it. No

I think even this argument is over-complicated. My primary argument is human nature: If you give people the lazy way to accomplish a goal, they will do it. No amount of begging college students to use it wisely is going to convince them. No amount of begging corporate executives to use it wisely is going to convince them. No amount of begging governments to use it wisely is going to convince them. When this inevitably backfires with college students who know nothing, corporate leaders who have the worst code in history, and governments who spent billions on a cat video generator, only then will they learn.

Terr_ 1y ago
I often compare the AI (esp. LLM) risks to asbestos. There are a smalls set of situations where it is invaluable, but it's going to get misused and embedded in places where it causes subtle damage for years and then it'll cost a lot to fix.
pixl97 1y ago
Again, this is not the particular problem space of arguments that's being addressed here. This is one possible outcome. The "AI does not reach 300 IQ ever" argument. That is a different argument with its own set of probabilities and outcomes. Out of all possible outcomes it's not actually a bad one. People do some dumb crap and we eventually get over it. 300 IQ AI is near a worst possible scenario, especially if it's a fast takeoff. Humans being lazy will turn over everything to it, in which AI will likely do very well on for some time. As long as the AI decides to keep us around as pets we'll probably be fine, but the moment it needs some extra space for solar panels we will find ourselves in trouble.