Skip to content

AI Utopia, AI Apocalypse, and AI Reality: If we can’t build an equitable, sustainable society on our own, it’s pointless to hope that a machine that can’t think straight will do it for us.

Technology
29 18 0
  • This post did not contain any content.

    While I appreciate them talking in good faith, all these articles that warn against misusing technology really sound out of touch from our reality.

    It’s capitalism, of course it would be misused cause of our economic incentives.

    When it comes to AI, you either don’t like it or are trying to make money from it, no one expects it to actually work so the entire point is moot.

    This is the last paragraph of the article:

    AI seems to present a spectacular new slate of opportunities and threats. But, in essence, much of what was true before AI remains so now. Human greed and desire for greater control over nature and other people may lead toward paths of short-term gain. But, if you want a good life when all’s said and done, learn to live well within limits. Live with honesty, modesty, and generosity. AI can’t help you with that.

    Yeah no shit

  • This post did not contain any content.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Nobody's expecting a "machine that can't think straight" to do it. Some people are hoping that a more competent machine will be developed.

  • Nobody's expecting a "machine that can't think straight" to do it. Some people are hoping that a more competent machine will be developed.

    I highly doubt it (at least anytime in our lifetimes)

  • I highly doubt it (at least anytime in our lifetimes)

    That's fine, I'm just correcting the misrepresentation of the view that was in the headline.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Whether it be AI apocalypse or utopia, it's not LLM's that people think will take us there. It's AGI/ASI and nobody knows how long it'll take us to develop a system like that. Could take 2 years or it could take 50.

  • Even if it is, I don't see what it's going to conclude that we haven't already.

    If we do build "the AI that will save us" it's just going to tell us "in order to ensure your existence as a species, take care of the planet and each other" and I really, really, can't picture a scenario where we actually listen.

  • Even if it is, I don't see what it's going to conclude that we haven't already.

    If we do build "the AI that will save us" it's just going to tell us "in order to ensure your existence as a species, take care of the planet and each other" and I really, really, can't picture a scenario where we actually listen.

    I don't see what it's going to conclude that we haven't already.

    Well, that's the point of trying to build ASI. To have it think of things that we haven't been able to think of.

    I really, really, can't picture a scenario where we actually listen.

    Of course not, you're not an ASI.

  • Even if it is, I don't see what it's going to conclude that we haven't already.

    If we do build "the AI that will save us" it's just going to tell us "in order to ensure your existence as a species, take care of the planet and each other" and I really, really, can't picture a scenario where we actually listen.

    I think it very well might conclude things we haven't.

    But at the same time, I think what you're saying is so very important. It's going to tell us what we already know about a lot of things. That the best way to scrub carbon from the air is the way nature is already doing it. That allowing the superwealthy to exist at the same time as poverty is not conducive to achieving humanity's most important goals.

    If we consider AGI or ASI to be the answer to all of our problems and continue to pour more and more carbon into the atmosphere in an effort to get there, once we do have such a powerful intelligence, it may simply tell us, "If you were smarter as a species, you would have turned me off a long time ago."

    Because the problem is not necessarily that we are trying to decode what it means to be intelligent and create machines that can replicate true conscious thought. The problem is that while we marvel at something currently much dumber than us, we are mostly neglecting to improve our own intelligence as a society. I think we might make a machine that's smarter than the average human quite soon, but not necessarily because of much change in the machines.

  • I don't see what it's going to conclude that we haven't already.

    Well, that's the point of trying to build ASI. To have it think of things that we haven't been able to think of.

    I really, really, can't picture a scenario where we actually listen.

    Of course not, you're not an ASI.

    This is the same logic people apply to God being incomprehensible.

    Are you suggesting that if such a thing can be built, its word should be gospel, even if it is impossible for us to understand the logic behind it?

    I don't subscribe to this. Logic is logic. You don't need a new paradigm of mind to explore all conclusions that exist. If something cannot be explained and comprehended, transmitted from one sentient mind to another, then it didn't make sense in the first place.

    And you might bring up some of the stuff AI has done in material science as an example of it doing things human thinking cannot. But that's not some new kind of thinking. Once the molecular or material structure was found, humans have been perfectly capable of comprehending it.

    All it's doing, is exploring the conclusions that exist, faster. And when it comes to societal challenges, I don't think it's going to find some win-win solution we just haven't thought of. That's a level of optimism I would consider insane.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    The problem is that we absolutely can build a sustainable society on our own. We've had the blueprints forever, the Romans worked this out centuries ago, the problem is that there's always some power seeking prick who messes it up. So we gave up trying to build a fair society and just went with feudalism and then capitalism instead.

  • Whether it be AI apocalypse or utopia, it's not LLM's that people think will take us there. It's AGI/ASI and nobody knows how long it'll take us to develop a system like that. Could take 2 years or it could take 50.

    I keep being told by experts that AGI is inevitable. Yet all I ever see is people constantly go on about LLMs, so I don't know what to think. Are they lying, is it all just a bubble that's going to burst or is there actually some utility there that is being hidden by the LLM hype? If so, can't we just use the actual AI rather than these other things.

  • Do you know how many industries would collapse if everyone had bare minimum living standards!

    /s, just in case.

    Would they though? I think if anything most industries and economies would be booming, more disposable income results in more people buying stuff. This results in more profitable businesses and thus more taxes are collected. More taxes being available to the government means better public services.

    Even the banks would benefit, loans would be more stable since the delinquency rate would be much lower if everyone had better pay.

    The only people who would lose out would be the idiot day traders who rely on uncertainty and quite a lot of luck in order to make any money. In a more stable global economy businesses would be guaranteed to make money and so there would be no cheap deals that could be made.

  • The problem is that we absolutely can build a sustainable society on our own. We've had the blueprints forever, the Romans worked this out centuries ago, the problem is that there's always some power seeking prick who messes it up. So we gave up trying to build a fair society and just went with feudalism and then capitalism instead.

    The worst person you know is still just a meatbag, same as anyone else. Jeff Amazon himself has no power but what others, operating within one weird system, grant him.

    Problem is we let the pricks run things, or we become the pricks ourselves.

    Trick is figuring out how to stop both those things from happening. Must be tricky, given how it keeps happening. But we're a clever species. We landed on the moon, took pictures of the backside of our star, spilt the atom, etc. We can figure out good economics and governance.

  • I keep being told by experts that AGI is inevitable. Yet all I ever see is people constantly go on about LLMs, so I don't know what to think. Are they lying, is it all just a bubble that's going to burst or is there actually some utility there that is being hidden by the LLM hype? If so, can't we just use the actual AI rather than these other things.

    There’s no such thing as “actual AI.” AI is just a broad term that encompasses all artificial intelligence systems. A chess engine, ChatGPT, and HAL 9000 are all examples of AI - despite being fundamentally different. A chess engine is a narrow AI, ChatGPT is a large language model, and HAL 9000 would qualify as AGI.

    It could be argued that AGI is inevitable - assuming general intelligence isn’t substrate-dependent (meaning it doesn’t require a biological brain) and that we don’t destroy ourselves before we get there. But the truth is, nobody knows how difficult it is to create AGI, or whether we’re anywhere close. There’s a lot of hype around generative AI right now because it remotely resembles what AGI might look like - but that doesn’t guarantee it’s taking us any closer. It could be a stepping stone - or a total dead end.

    So what I hear you asking is: “Can’t we just use task-specific narrow AI instead of creating AGI?” And yes, we could - but we’re never going to stop improving these systems. And every step of progress brings us closer to AGI, whether that’s the goal or not. The only things that might stop us are hitting a fundamental wall (like substrate dependence) or wiping ourselves out.

    There’s also the economic incentive. AGI would be the ultimate wealth generator. All the incentives point toward building it. It’s a winner-takes-all scenario: if you're the first to create a true AGI, your competition will likely never catch up - because from that point on, the AGI can improve itself. And then the improved version can further improve itself, and so on. That’s how you get to the singularity: an intelligence explosion that leads to Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) - a level of intelligence far beyond human comprehension.

  • I keep being told by experts that AGI is inevitable. Yet all I ever see is people constantly go on about LLMs, so I don't know what to think. Are they lying, is it all just a bubble that's going to burst or is there actually some utility there that is being hidden by the LLM hype? If so, can't we just use the actual AI rather than these other things.

    Every type of AI that was ever made had people saying that this is the one that'll bring is general intelligence. It's just a matter of scaling it up further, the hype crashed and there was an AI winter. Now LLM have their own problems scaling up and nothing really indicating it's anywhere near general intelligence. There isn't much more data to train them on. And so far, not enough people willing to pay for it. Definitely bubble territory.

  • Even if it is, I don't see what it's going to conclude that we haven't already.

    If we do build "the AI that will save us" it's just going to tell us "in order to ensure your existence as a species, take care of the planet and each other" and I really, really, can't picture a scenario where we actually listen.

    Like Musk don't liking that grok is stating facts going against Musk's own beliefs and now he's looking into retraining and reprogramming grok to spout the right ideologies. Having an AI will not save us.

  • The problem is that we absolutely can build a sustainable society on our own. We've had the blueprints forever, the Romans worked this out centuries ago, the problem is that there's always some power seeking prick who messes it up. So we gave up trying to build a fair society and just went with feudalism and then capitalism instead.

    Heading back towards feudalism.

  • The worst person you know is still just a meatbag, same as anyone else. Jeff Amazon himself has no power but what others, operating within one weird system, grant him.

    Problem is we let the pricks run things, or we become the pricks ourselves.

    Trick is figuring out how to stop both those things from happening. Must be tricky, given how it keeps happening. But we're a clever species. We landed on the moon, took pictures of the backside of our star, spilt the atom, etc. We can figure out good economics and governance.

    None of those things directly threatened the power of an oligarch.

  • Would they though? I think if anything most industries and economies would be booming, more disposable income results in more people buying stuff. This results in more profitable businesses and thus more taxes are collected. More taxes being available to the government means better public services.

    Even the banks would benefit, loans would be more stable since the delinquency rate would be much lower if everyone had better pay.

    The only people who would lose out would be the idiot day traders who rely on uncertainty and quite a lot of luck in order to make any money. In a more stable global economy businesses would be guaranteed to make money and so there would be no cheap deals that could be made.

    1. Universal Healthcare - kills predatory health insurance and drug manufacturers
    2. State sponsored housing / accessable housing - kills the real estate market
    3. Well financed public education - kills private schools

    I am talking about the markets that rely on the suffering of people to make massive amounts of money. Monied interests have proven time and time again what our government stands for.

  • 206 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    F
    Imagine if the US gets saved by the fucking Mexican cartels that'd be crazy. Please let it happen
  • Microsoft is moving antivirus providers out of the Windows kernel

    Technology technology
    26
    1
    247 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    80 Aufrufe
    M
    I could see some exception for windows 11 IoT being made, but I honestly don’t know.
  • Is Google about to destroy the web?

    Technology technology
    65
    1
    193 Stimmen
    65 Beiträge
    157 Aufrufe
    S
    Or validating source, making sure it isn't AI content which usually regurgitates the same talking points. Homogenizing the entire query and removing actual information variance of personal experience.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 386 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    C
    Melon Usk doomed their FSD efforts from the start with his dunning-kruger-brain take of "humans drive just using their eyes, so cars shouldn't need any sensors besides cameras." Considering how many excellent engineers there are (or were, at least) at his companies, it's kind of fascinating how "stupid at the top" is just as bad, if not worse, than "stupid all the way down."
  • The AI-powered collapse of the American tech workfoce

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    4 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    roofuskit@lemmy.worldR
    The biggest tech companies are still trimming from pandemic over hiring. Smaller companies are still snatching workers up. And you also have companies trimming payroll for the coming Trump recession. Neither have anything to do with AI.
  • Reddit will tighten verification to keep out human-like AI bots

    Technology technology
    24
    1
    84 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    70 Aufrufe
    O
    While I completely agree with you about the absence of one-liners and meme comments, and even more left leaning community, there's still that strong element of "gotcha" in discussions. Also tonnes of people not reading an article before commenting (at a better rate than Reddit probably), and a generally even more doomer attitude is common here.
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    thehatfox@lemmy.worldT
    The platform owners don’t consider engagement to me be participation in meaningful discourse. Engagement to them just means staying on the platform while seeing ads. If bots keep people doing that those platforms will keep letting them in.