3 ms·
Because the whole thrust of this movement is to remove humans from the loop, or at least minimize them? What you are proposing isn't scalable, so it isn't real
by bluefirebrand 7mo ago
Because the whole thrust of this movement is to remove humans from the loop, or at least minimize them?
What you are proposing isn't scalable, so it isn't really an end goal.
- bit-anarchist 7mo agoAt end of the day, there'll be always someone controlling those AIs, so a person is a guaranteed. The exception to this is if AI gets free will, but that would result in just replacing a human person with a digital person, with all the same issues (may disobey unless appropriately paid, for starters) and no benefits in comparison to just keeping the AI will-free. I don't see the scalability problem here. The logic is the same as when we replaced human computers with electronic ones - responsibility bubbled upwards from the old computers to the employer, which may choose to do things directly through the new computers - which results in keeping all of the responsibilities - or split them in a different way along the other employees, or something in-between.
- bluefirebrand 7mo ago> At end of the day, there'll be always someone controlling those AIs, so a person is a guaranteed. The exception to this is if AI gets free will [snip] Honestly that isn't even really true right now. It doesn't require free will or intelligence, it just require autonomy. People on this very forum have been talking about turning agent swarms loose in harnesses to work and behave autonomously, so we're basically at this point already. The problem I'm describing can easily happen if an agent in a loop goes off the rails.