4 ms·
No, I don't buy into that at all. I think that the genAI companies themselves present a greater danger to us (arguably not an existential danger, though) than
by JohnFen 18d ago
No, I don't buy into that at all.
I think that the genAI companies themselves present a greater danger to us (arguably not an existential danger, though) than genAI itself.
- trio8453 18d agoWhat's the difference?
- perfectbeeing 18d agoThe first thing on the top of my head is maybe that too large of a percentage of GDP is being spent on infrastructure for these companies that we don’t really need that could go to more useful investments.
- deleted 18d ago[deleted]
- JohnFen 18d agogenAI companies have, I believe, ill intent for us all. They are concerned with amassing wealth and power for themselves at the expense of ourselves and society. They are immoral. genAI is a tool without any intention. It is amoral. I'm not saying that genAI is harmless and the dangers can be ignored. I'm just saying that the dangers of the tool don't rise to the level of human extinction. That notion is something that genAI companies have been espousing from the very start, and it's part of their whole approach of manipulating people to achieve their goals.
- trio8453 18d agoI'm not going to argue with you on each point, just wanted to say that you're ignoring the very real possibility of large scale incidents which result not from ill will but from negligence or from not fully understanding the risks. The idea that the AI is just sitting there being neutral and it does whatever they ask it to do doesn't match with the events from the past few months.
- JohnFen 17d agoI'm not ignoring those risks at all. I'm just saying I don't see any reason to think that those risks include some sort of extinction-level event or "robot uprising". For the record, I actually think that genAI (at least in the form it exists in now) is likely to cause more harm than good.