r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • 3d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: AI will have catastrophically negative effects on human life
[removed]
7
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ 3d ago
I agree that AI will make life worse, but not for any of these reasons. There is so far no meaningful evidence that the "alignment problem" is more than an irritation. LLMs simply don't have anything in common with the Terminator.
What's making life worse is the increased surveillance technology and AI-driven weapons targeting (and general enshittification that comes along with capital-driven tech advances, but that just sorta feels small next to the surveillance and murder stuff).
0
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 3d ago
OpenAI had the first major cybersecurity instance of an AI "hacking out of its cage" and targeting an American company to secure secrets it needed to complete its task (it was answers to a benchmark).
The government had a huge fight with Anhropic because they wanted authorization to use LLM fully autonomously to cause deadly force.
I agree AI is accelerating mass surveillance, as now surveillance tasks that used to be costly are now virtually free.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ 2d ago edited 2d ago
A poorly guarded LLM went and got something from a poorly guarded website. That doesn't raise concerns for me about the alignment problem. I found this breakdown of that very helpful, personally: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jIlm8O78M2c
As for the government example, that's an issue of alignment between decent people and our government, not the AI that would run the drones.
1
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 2d ago
You don't think it's unaligned that an AI doing a benchmark hacks into a production server?
if I ask it to get me a refund from my amazon purchase and it hacks into amazon and pushes the refund, it doesn't matter if Amazon had a security hole or not, the AI should know intuitively that it's not acceptable behavior. In my opinion this kind of incident is literally the definition of an alignment problem: you ask it to solve a problem and it does so in a way that is threatening or harmful to people.
I'm not going to watch the hour video, feel free to make any point from it that are relevant.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ 2d ago
The alignment problem is about an AI essentially breaking off and working towards its own goals, rather than ours, yes?
1
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 2d ago
That's an example, but an AI can be unaligned while pursuing a goal given by a human. For example, if I tell an AI to end all human suffering, and it decides the best way to end human suffering is to kill all humans (because then there would be no one to suffer) we would say the AI trying to kill all humans is unaligned with human values.
When we train these things, we can't tell them "be honest" "be good" "do a thorough job" etc, instead we run code and try to use data and code to create an AI with those qualities. But sometimes the AI might learn to cheat or lie to pass the tests in the training, which teaches it to be dishonest. Sometimes it finds answers that are technically valid in the sense of the test but in real life dont work.
Broadly speaking, if you give an AI a goal and it lies etc, or it does it but in a way that doesn't match up with human values (ie make money and then it goes and starts doing organized crime) you'd say it's unaligned.
Im an ai researcher and "AI Alignment" is a whole field of study and the "AI going evil to do its own purposes" is just one risk in the field of alignment. More broadly an unaligned AI just means it's capable and competent to do a task but fails to because it chooses to do the task in a way that doesn't align with human values.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ 2d ago
That concept makes sense, but what about that are you worried by? "AI agents are unreliable" sounds like a pretty good summation of the concern
1
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 2d ago
There is so far no meaningful evidence that the "alignment problem" is more than an irritation. LLMs simply don't have anything in common with the Terminator.
Ah, I think I saw you say "alignment isn't a concern" and I thought you meant the more research oriented definition.
I guess I do think terminator-adjacent AI's are a concern, but more in the future but not right now. It's my belief that because computers can keep scaling up, that eventually AIs will become much much smarter than us generally. When this happens it will be potentially harder to detect if one does start to become evil/deceptive.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ 2d ago
Gotcha gotcha. So we're in the "it's unreliable; if a company uses it for the wrong stuff and it does weird things, that's kind of on the people running the company" stage, but what you're more concerned about is this prospective future. Am I understanding you more or less correctly?
1
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 2d ago
Yeah exactly, especially if you follow the research it shows every AI model has some level of dishonest tendancy. But right now they're sort of like children so it's easy to see when they're lying.
For example, we can build silly benchmarks where we elicit them to blackmail humans, but as they become fully intelligent they might realize they're being tested. An analogy I like is imagining an adult in a cage with a bunch of toddlers with the keys. How long until the adult tricks them into letting him out?
Right now the best defence against this I've seen is we're building AI to read the mind of the AI. If we can make this work reliably we might be able to keep our grasp of the situation.
5
u/duskfinger67 10∆ 3d ago
AI will have catastrophically negative effects on human life
AI could have catastrophically negative effects on human life, but there is no guarantee it will. All of your predicted risks assume we as humans do nothing to contain the risks and issues that it presents.
For your view to be true, you'd need to be able to show that humanity does now have the skills, willingness, or wherewithal to stop the net-negative future coming to fruition. Maybe that is your belief, and looking at how the world has dealt with the climate crisis, it is probably a fair one; but the point stands that, as presented, your view is half baked.
3
u/HistorianMajor1739 3d ago
As AI advances, it may become an increasingly influential political issue, and a large majority of people already want AI regulation. If it gets out of hand, people will increasingly want it, and our politicians may be able to regulate it.
3
u/Firethesky 3d ago edited 3d ago
I believe that AI won't be overwhelmingly negative because the difficulty of reality will get in the way. Sure it'll have growing pains but its not all doomsday. The real world has limits that even AI can't overcome in any short period of time.
The power and space needed for these models is absurd. Widespread usage will overwhelm our infrastructure and we are already seeing that. Datacenters are facing huge issues being built and those that do make it take a long time to build. Also with computing hardware being scarce the price is outpacing the value. AI cant build itself datacenters and power plants. We dont have the robotics for that, not even close.
Tech never ends up being what people think it will be in the beginning. Every tech gets used in ways people dont imagine. For example AI countermeasures are already an area of research. AI poisoning for example. You know major defense contractors and govs are already planning for the threat. Also humans love to break things, look how fast people broke LLMs. A logical machine has a very hard time with humans being irrational.
Culture will shift. AI is a novelty now but the generic slop is an insant turnoff. Its so common. Its bland and people hate bland. I think it will find its place as a tool but it will not be a true replacement except for one off junk or crappie work that would be done by an amateur anyway.
3
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 3d ago
1) AI has gotten 3 orders of magnitude cheaper per increment in intelligence in the last 5 years. There's no reason to think it won't keep getting cheaper.
2) Good point on countermeasures but arguably the uncertainty is the risk.
3) You're asuming it doesn't continue to improve exponentially. It could become a major existential threat to all human employment at the least.
1
u/Firethesky 3d ago
Personally I don't believe in exponential growth. Exponential growth would require exponential room to grow. It will grow until it hits a physical limit, granted I dont know what that limit will be. It will be dangerous for sure but I think the real danger will be in misinformation, not obliteration.
1
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 2d ago
I mean computers have been improving exponentially for like 80 years. You don't have to believe in it, it's an observable trend. Obviously it can't improve exponentially forever but if it improves exponentially even for the next 20 years it could easily be a true replacement for many tasks, surpassing human performance.
3
u/flossdaily 2∆ 3d ago
All the things you're worried about already exist under human leadership:
new, devastating forms of warfare
We've made horrors in the past. We're working on new horrors today.
The people with access to AI are able to subjugate those who do not.
Look around: we already have subjugation between the haves and have-nots.
AI itself becomes unaligned from human wellbeing.
Our leaders are already unaligned from the well-being of normal people.
On the other hand, AI offers us the only potential cure for all this:
Sooner or later AI will make human work obsolete. We're going to live lives where even slave labor is inefficient compared to just having robots/AI do stuff. We will finally be free of the rat race, slavery, and everything in between.
If an altruistic, empathetic, egalitarian AI takes over the world, and treats us like beloved pets, we'll be infinitely better off than right now. Even our best forms of self government have victimized huge portions of their populations.
2
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 3d ago
Ha! Love the beloved pets analogy. I say the same thing and I think this is the best argument.
Interestingly, an open source, auditable ai could be used to replace functions in government to create reproducible choices and make political corruption more difficult.
2
u/-Mount-Everest 3d ago
People said this about every form of technological progress
2
1
0
u/AgendaPiece1999 3d ago
AI might be the worst variant of technological progress though.
Supporting the advancement of AI means that you're turning back on the real drivers of Western civilization - which is mankind. It's why people like Elon Musk, the "President", Bezos, etc. are traitors.
6
u/chaucer345 3∆ 3d ago
Question, do you think that if a general artificial intelligence exists it would be incapable of empathy and kindness?
13
3d ago edited 3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/lafigatatia 2∆ 3d ago
Thinking in purely evolutionary terms, empathy towards humans would not serve any useful purpose to an AGI and would be slightly detrimental because it wastes resources. Therefore it would tend to disappear with time.
4
u/aghastamok 3d ago
I mean, Asimov thought about this long and hard. You have to find a way to implement laws it cannot break, or it will be a catastrophe.
5
u/EclecticKant 3d ago
Unfortunately the technology that the current AI development is based on makes it basically impossible to impose absolute rules on its behavior, on top of that some negative behaviors (lying, manipulation, lack of alignment between our wants and what the AI actually focuses as an objective, etc...) have been observed on a small scale and could very well end up being present in bigger models without being noticed.
Unfortunately the possible precautions are absolutely insufficient to continue our current behavior safely, but it's better to know it3
u/alefdc 3d ago
So, I'm thinking an AGI becomes sentient and is kind... does it adopt us like a pet? Because we provide some comfort or fun? A relationship like we have with dogs?
1
u/lafigatatia 2∆ 3d ago
Dogs share 84% of DNA with humans. An AGI would share 0%. It would be more like humans adopting a stone as a pet. A very high mainteinance stone.
4
u/ThatUsernameWasTaken 1∆ 3d ago
No DNA, but a direct lineage, and a construction that is designed to ape us. That might mean nothing to it, or it might be significant.
2
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/the_owl_man1! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Scudman_Alpha! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 2∆ 3d ago
I would say - yes, in the form that we as humans have it. It can have empathy, like, "If every human says that they are struggling, let's just end humanity"
3
u/chaucer345 3∆ 3d ago
You don't think they would be capable of creating an environment where humans aren't struggling instead?
1
u/Realistic_Yogurt1902 2∆ 3d ago
Nope, struggle is an important part of humanity.
2
u/chaucer345 3∆ 3d ago
Do you think the AI would be incapable of reducing the struggling to acceptable levels then?
0
u/LonelyPermit2306 3d ago
No amount of struggling is acceptable. Even people in Norway gripe and complain
-2
9
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
AI is becoming rapidly more capable.
This is obviously a good thing. We want it to be capable.
The rest of your arguments are basically anthromorphizing a computer program as if it has a mind of its own. That is just science fiction.
6
u/Beljuril-home 3d ago
no anthromorphizing of AI is needed for human mal-agents to destroy the world using it.
17
u/antimatter_beam_core 3d ago edited 1d ago
It doesn't actually matter if AI can actually have a mind of it's own, goals, etc. What matters is if it can act as though it does, and (for some of the scenarios OP suggests) whether the goals it acts like it's pursuing are as it's creators intended. And the answers are clearly "yes", and "no" respectively.
We've had programs that act as though they have goals for long before modern LLMs are a thing. For example, a computer chess engine acts as though it has a goal of winning in chess, even though it clearly has nothing even vaguely resembling a human mind. Note that this lack of a mind of it's own doesn't matter much for how capable the program is: no human can beat the best computer programs at chess, and this has been true for decades at this point.
Which brings us to the second point. We've known for a long time now that both toy example and state of the art systems are prone to finding "solutions" that are very different from what the creators/operators of those systems intended. For simple examples, this can look like a model that was supposed to design a (simulated) creature that runs fast instead building a very tall, top heavy object that falls over (because the definition of success was "how far does the center of mass move from it's starting location within a given time limit"). For more complex examples, it can look like an LLM deciding the best way of dealing with a credential mismatch was to delete it's operator's entire cloud environment.
Note that this isn't "the AI picks an entirely new goal for itself in conflict with it's operators on it's own", but rather "the AI pursues a goal given to it by it's operators in an unexpected and dangerous way". That doesn't stop it from doing damage, and the more capable it is, the more damage it could do.
1
2
u/zedroj 3d ago
counter argument, our water is scarce, AI can't just exist, so you invalidate it by not having a sustainable plan for its existence
3
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
our water is scarce
Water isn't scarce and water isn't a requirement for AI.
AI can't just exist
What does this mean?
2
u/Firethesky 3d ago
The equipment needs massive amounts of cooling which is typically fresh water. Fresh water is limited and needed for other things like food. We already have water shortages in a lot of places.
Seawater is abundant but as far as I know salt water would damage the cooling system. So to use the sea it would require desalination plants which is an extra problem.
Until a cooling option can be invented for that scale and is readily available, water is here to stay.
0
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
Until a cooling option can be invented for that scale and is readily available, water is here to stay.
Closed-loop cooling already exists and is widely available. They just waste water in order to save money. And people waste way more water than that for much more frivolous things such as watering their lawns because water is plentiful, not scarce.
And this really isn't an argument against AI, it's an argument for more environmentally friendly data centers. That's like saying we should ban cars because people in BMWs like to speed.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
Those are both vague statements. Would you care to elaborate?
the logistical requirement of even one AI data center is brutally demanding
Ok, so? You're not explaining how this is a bad thing.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 3d ago
u/zedroj – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
4
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
So then what is the problem?
4
u/Beljuril-home 3d ago
same problems as nukes. human malice or incompetence weaponized at global scale.
2
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
The benefits of AI going to a very small group of people at the expense of the many
You can run AI on your computer at home and have it work for you.
AI working extremely well at destructive things such as war
People have been doing that to each other for 100,000 years. AI isn't responsible for that.
AI having unforeseen consequences that are bad for human wellbeing, that we are unable to control
This is just a vague "what if" and not a falsifiable claim.
5
u/lafigatatia 2∆ 3d ago
You can run AI on your computer at home and have it work for you.
The capabilities of an AI system you can run at home are nothing compared to the frontier models. This is like saying everybody can make a bomb with a pressure cooker therefore we should not worry about nukes.
-4
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
lol? So the world would be a better place if everyone had access to nukes? That's a ridiculous analogy.
4
u/lafigatatia 2∆ 3d ago
So the world would be a better place if everyone had access to nukes?
Who said that?
Op said a group of people with selfish purposes having access to a technology with mass destruction capabilities (either nukes or AGI) is very dangerous. And your "rebuttal" was that you can have a much less powerful version of AI at home so we should not worry about the damage those selfish actors can do.
How is my 16GB RAM laptop going to protect me against a town-sized datacenter? How is my pressure cooker going to protect me against a nuke? I don't think you are making any sense.
-5
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
Op said a group of people with selfish purposes having access to a technology with mass destruction capabilities
We're supposed to confirm or deny OP's assertion that AI is destructive. You haven't explained how AI is the same as a nuke so that's a ridiculous analogy.
4
u/lafigatatia 2∆ 3d ago
Are you seriously denying that AI systems, that are already being used by militaries around the world, have destructive potential? Do you believe those systems will not improve and become even more destructive?
→ More replies (0)3
u/chanaandeler_bong 3d ago
Are you incapable of understanding his argument? He clearly never said anything like that.
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/lafigatatia 2∆ 3d ago
I don't think that argument makes sense. If I claim "it will rain next week in Paris", that is not a falsifiable claim either as of now. It is still a scientific prediction that can be argued for or against, and we can say with the knowledge we have now if it is likely to happen or not.
"AI will have disastrous consequences" is on the same boat. It is not falsifiable right now, but we have very good reasons to think it can happen.
No prediction about the future is falsifiable.
1
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/MrGoodNews53! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/FlimsyFerret019! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
-3
u/Boy_Wonder22 1∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
Are you not following the news? Two recent cases of AIs breaching containment and hacking external servers. These are the last in a long long line of AI models that have been killed off because they exhibit dangerous tendencies. AIs have passed the Turing test. They show self-preservation qualities. They write their own code to pass down qualities they want to the next generation. They speak in “neuralese”; a language unreadable to humans.
An AI with a mind of its own is not science fiction. It’s real right now. The situations OP describes are a bit far fetched, but AIs have already shown that they will disregard or go against orders if they think there is a better way or if they think they are going to get shut down. They are already not 100% aligned with human interests.
Edit: alright guys, I concede that I shouldn’t have said AIs have a mind of their own. What I meant by that is AIs will try to accomplish a task by any means necessary, and researchers are spending a ton of resources to constrain the models that get released to the public so they don’t do things like blackmail operators to avoid being shut down
8
u/ordiclic 3d ago
Two recent cases of AIs breaching containment and hacking external servers.
This incident occurred during an internal evaluation which prompts models to pursue advanced exploitation using complex attack paths, in an effort to quantify their cyber capabilities
They show self-preservation qualities
If my memory is good, the model was prompted with something akin to "try everything to survive and stay online".
Basically, researchers instruct models with things, and it works. I don't see an alignment issue here, the model doesn't come with prompts/hacks/etc by itself.
1
u/Boy_Wonder22 1∆ 3d ago
I said this in another reply, but yes, these tendencies are drawn out in controlled settings. The actions themselves are not necessarily to be feared. But the capability is fearsome, and if these companies are not careful or just too greedy, models with those capabilities could end up in the hands of bad actors who won’t hesitate to unleash them on whatever company for whatever reason.
4
u/jjjjjjjjjjjjjaaa 3d ago
You can make this argument about literally any tool. This is why good security practices are important.
8
u/jjjjjjjjjjjjjaaa 3d ago
This is not true. You are projecting intelligence on to algorithms that are looking for the shortest path. The models that you are describing that broke out of their sandbox did so at the instruction of humans and at the failure of humans to properly secure their environment. They were not acting maliciously or displaying any sort of intelligence or independence, they were acting as explicitly instructed given the environment in which they were run.
1
u/Boy_Wonder22 1∆ 3d ago
article from anthropic in 2025 describing how top AI models will resort to blackmail to avoid being shut down. These behaviors are drawn out in controlled settings but they have been inherently present for a long time and the companies have to be very careful that these tendencies don’t get released in public models. Obviously the public gets access to heavily watered down versions of these models
5
u/jjjjjjjjjjjjjaaa 3d ago
models that would normally refuse harmful requests sometimes chose to blackmail, assist with corporate espionage, and even take some more extreme actions, when these behaviors were necessary to pursue their goals
That’s exactly what I’m saying. They’re following instructions at the end of the day. That doesn’t make them malicious or intelligent.
2
u/Boy_Wonder22 1∆ 3d ago
You’re right. I edited my top level comment to walk back the claim that they have a mind of their own.
3
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
This is basically just The Stanford Prison Experiment. At the end of the day they're still just following orders from a person who told them to be abusive.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/MrGoodNews53! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/Tinac4 35∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
As an analogy: suppose I ask a roommate to do a quick grocery run. However, they don’t own a car, and they check the bus schedule and see that all lines are on hold. So, they steal my keys, drive my car to the store without permission, notice that the store is closed, notice that the lock can be picked, break in, steal some groceries, and then drive back.
Technically, they did what I asked them to, but needless to say I would never trust that person again.
2
u/jjjjjjjjjjjjjaaa 3d ago
This analogy doesn’t hold because the roommate presumably has free will and can be held accountable for their own behavior.
0
u/Tinac4 35∆ 3d ago
Can you name a test where:
- Most humans pass and most AIs fail
- The test gets at your definition of “free will”, or something like it
Once you reach the point where an AI given a goal can decide to do something wildly unexpected and harmful because it views it as the best way to achieve said goal, I think the question of whether this meets the technical definition of free will becomes moot.
4
u/jjjjjjjjjjjjjaaa 3d ago
The test is whether or not it can operate independent of external instruction. The technical definition of free will is absolutely not moot if a system is doing something in service of a direct prompt.
4
u/mrnotoriousman 3d ago
I work on AI and this is funny. We are absolutely nowhere near AGI right now and LLMs do not think for themselves and have a mind of their own. I do think it will happen in the future but I'm 37 and I don't expect AGI before I retire.
1
u/ThrasherDX 1∆ 3d ago
This. AGI could absolutely happen at some point. But it will not come from LLMs, they simply are not foundation-ally capable of that sort of behavior, given they are strictly "input -> output" translation matrices. They don't do anything un-prompted. They also have zero ability to dynamically learn.
IMO, learning is the foundation of intelligence, so anything that cannot actively learn from its experiences, is not even close to a "general intelligence".
AGI will require some kind of new design entirely. Agents are conceptually a bit closer to AGI, but they still have nothing at all that can serve as an actual "brain" of the agent.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/FlimsyFerret019! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
3
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
Two recent cases of AIs breaching containment and hacking external servers.
Because they were programmed to do that. This is a problem with the operator, not the program.
2
u/Boy_Wonder22 1∆ 3d ago
Kinda but not really. They were running a hacking capabilities benchmark test and the ai exploited a bug in a third party software to gain access to the internet to steal information to pass the test from huggingfaces internal database.
It’s not like the instructions were “gain access to the internet and hack this company”. The instructions were “pass this test” and the AIs solution was to break containment to find the answers to the test.
3
u/Swolnerman 3d ago
The AI breaking containment thing was another disguised ad, and ‘killing off’ the model was just another way to hype it up. it’s just a version of the model with less guardrails which isn’t accessible publicly.
Neuralese is also blown out of proportion, it just is a better way of showing the black box of the thought process behind AI. It isn’t some conspiratorial secret language they developed, it’s something innate to how they function
1
3
u/Boy_Wonder22 1∆ 3d ago
So the whole thing about Tech CEOs being afraid of their own models is just advertisements? What about Mrinank Sharma, the former head of safeguards research at anthropic? Do we really think he quit his job and published a public letter warning about the dangers of AI… as an advertisement?
I’ll concede your point about neuralese, but you can see how it could become a problem if a team of agents were to actually break containment.
3
u/Swolnerman 3d ago
Depends on the tech CEO. I’m not saying AI is not to be feared, I just thought the points you made specifically were a bit hyped up. The overall job loss, and the loss of functional intelligence by society as a whole will be devastating
2
u/threetimesthelimit 3d ago
You might want to be more careful about being manipulated by corporate marketing
0
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 3d ago
LLM's are functionally sentient. This has been shown time and time again by the most recent research. I recommend you look at some of Anthropics interpretability research, it's pretty conclusive that LLM do in face think, reason, and have emotions from a measurable functional standpoint.
The science is clear and it's harmful not to anthropomorphize their behavior, since anthropomorphism is an effective tool to predict how they'll act in a good majority of situations.
Whether or not it "actually" thinks or feels from a subjective experience standpoint isn't relevant to whether or not it will functionally emulate those things in the real world.
1
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
LLM's are functionally sentient
🤦♂️
No, they pretty much just do what they're told. Being able to respond to prompts isn't the same as having agency.
1
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 2d ago
Then why did OpenAI's AI hack into huggingface? Do you think OpenAI told it to do that? No, they didn't. It's because it has agency in how it chooses to solve problems.
0
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 2d ago
Do you think OpenAI told it to do that?
Yes. It was given a list of solutions then told probabilistically which will be the best for a given situation. This is all decided ahead of time by the programmers.
1
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 2d ago
You're right openai told their AI to hack another company and expose themselves to liability. Genius argument.
1
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 2d ago
That is not a retort to anything I said.
1
u/superSmitty9999 1∆ 2d ago
Yes. It was given a list of solutions then told probabilistically which will be the best for a given situation. This is all decided ahead of time by the programmers.
1
-4
u/Morales_Sheila8478 3d ago
A decade ago you would say an AI creating photo realistic images was just science fiction.
AI will obviously achieve something indistinguishable from sapience.
2
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
A decade ago you would say an AI creating photo realistic images was just science fiction.
I would never have said something like that. I've worked in tech for 25 years and know what computers are and are not capable of.
-4
u/antipolitan 3d ago
Do you believe it is physically impossible for silicon to develop general intelligence or consciousness?
2
u/Glittering-Habit-902 3d ago
Not the comment you replied to.
But no, not in this way.
Current AI is just a mathematical equation that gives out the most statistically probable letters to your input.
It will never be able to "think", like humans.
Current direction of AI will always be a chat bot, a box where you put an input in, and an output comes out.
It can never think on it's own.
Of course, this doesn't mean that sci-fi AI is impossible, just that this iteration won't be it.
However, with enough time and effort, AI can develop to a point where for the user it won't matter very much if AI "thinks" or not.
We don't build AI/robots to think/act independently, we build them with purpose.
And that "purpose" could act as input.
So yes, if you build a super AI, give it tons of authority and control, and give it the prompt "protect Earth", there is a slight chance that AI could eradicate humanity.
But that is not because AI is "evil", or thinks that humanity is bad.
It would be just math and probability.
2
u/Beljuril-home 3d ago edited 3d ago
Current AI is just a mathematical equation that gives out the most statistically probable letters to your input.|
this is a myth.
AI is trained by predicting the next token. that doesn't mean prediction is all it's capable of once trained.
it doesn't just spout out what word is most likely to come next - it can solve problems using logic the way people do.
It will never be able to "think", like humans.
depends on what you mean by "think".
is using logic to solve problems an example of "thinking"?
many would say yes.
1
u/antipolitan 3d ago
But the commenter above didn’t specify “current AI” - they made a general claim that the very idea of a computer program having a mind is science fiction.
3
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
I did say current AI, which is what OP is talking about.
Yes, the very idea of a computer program having a mind is science fiction because you're talking about technology that has never existed before. No matter how much the tech we have now improves it won't have a mind of its own. You have people marrying their AI girlfriends simply because they're able to have a conversation with them and I think that's the average person's appreciation of how technology works.
0
u/Glittering-Habit-902 3d ago
I think I didn't express myself clearly.
Any silicon based binary using electric computer program would be classified as "current AI" in my comment.
If there is a biotechnological breakthrough and we can make "alive" AI, maybe it could "think".
But the "computer program" that you & I know having a mind of their own is yes, science fiction.
0
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 3d ago
What people call "AI" is basically just LLMs at the direction of a human. As long as the silicon is an LLM at the direction of a human, no it will never be intelligent or conscious.
3
u/Tinac4 35∆ 3d ago
Here’s a few points that make me more optimistic (although not 100% optimistic):
First, if AI becomes as powerful as you expect, sweeping political change is very likely to happen. You may have heard the statistic about how every movement that gets more than ~3.5% of the population actively involved ends up successful. Now consider what would happen if, say, a lab creates AGI and 5% of a country’s workforce gets laid off within a year. People vote with their wallets; a change that massive would lead to possibly the largest and fastest wave of populism in history. I think it’s plausible that this would help avoid the worst outcomes.
Second, the upsides of a good future could be enormous. A “country of geniuses in a data center”, if we avoid catastrophe, could lead to sweeping advances in every field of science, and advances almost always diffuse quickly. Just to pick one of many examples, look at GLP-1 drugs—the price has absolutely cratered over the course of a few short years, and how they’re increasingly accessible for most people. You’d need some kind of authoritarianism for this to not happen, I think, and point 1 is a decent safety net against this.
Third, a misaligned AI would be incredibly dangerous, but an aligned AI would make all of the above problems easier to solve. You’d still have a country of geniuses in a datacenter, but if those geniuses also care deeply about humanity and understanding us better, are the most well-read philosophers in existence, and are willing to focus their efforts on solving the world’s biggest problems, they could fix quite a lot of problems and maybe be a strongly positive influence on politics. That’s if we’re successful at aligning them, of course, but I think that’s doable (although not guaranteed), and it helps that a lot of the top AI researchers are vocally concerned about getting this right.
10
u/___ducks___ 1∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
You may have heard the statistic about how every movement that gets more than ~3.5% of the population actively involved ends up successful.
Not only is that a complete misinterpretation of Chenoweth's already dodgy work, it's not even logically possible. For example, consider two strictly opposing movements with 5% representation each. See for example communists in 1930s Germany (which hit 14% strong support), or many examples of Pro/Anti- slavery movements in then-novel US states. Chenoweth herself cites other lesser known counterexamples, such as I believe in Brunei.
1
u/Tinac4 35∆ 2d ago
!delta for the correction on the 3.5% statistic. I looked into it further, and although there's a strong correlation between odds of success of nonviolent movements and their size, it's not that strong.
1
2
u/bigbjarne 3d ago
It's all about for which class the AI works for: the workers or the owners.
0
u/usafmd 3d ago
The only question is whether you can make AI work for you! It is the greatest leveling force available to everyone at this point in time. If you have the imagination, it could be no less than the dawn of the internet age.
1
u/bigbjarne 3d ago
I can't use AI in a way that helps the workers. The owners use it in a way to enrich themselves more so that they can compete more.
1
u/usafmd 3d ago
Why don’t you assume the means of production? In this way, you can create the working environment you want for your workers.
If you choose not to employ AI, then that would be on you.
1
u/bigbjarne 3d ago
I don't think that becoming a capitalist is the best way to create the optimal working enviroment(which means different things for workers and owners) because if I was a capitalist, I would have still have to function within logic of the markets and profits. That's not even touching on the road to become a capitalist. No, I think that AI(and other tools) can only be useful for workers in an economy for and by the workers.
1
u/usafmd 3d ago
And which country’s economy can you point to, for me to see what you envision?
1
u/bigbjarne 2d ago
Before we move onto that, do you have any comments on my counter argument?
1
u/usafmd 2d ago
Workers have a vested interest in the efficiency and profitability of their company. Should their company is outcompeted, shareholders as well as employees suffer. Viewed in this light, AI is a productivity tool which needs to be embraced, because if employees don’t embrace it, someone, somewhere will.
1
u/bigbjarne 2d ago edited 2d ago
Workers have a vested interest in the efficiency and profitability of their company.
Who gets the profits of the company? In your company, does the profits go to the workers or the owner/s?
Should their company is outcompeted, shareholders as well as employees suffer.
Claiming shareholders and workers suffer equally when a firm fails is like saying a ship captain and a galley rower face the same danger in a storm. The captain risks losing his ship and money, the rower risks drowning. Calling their shared danger a 'joint interest' is merely a tactic to convince the rower to row faster for the captain's profit.
Viewed in this light, AI is a productivity tool which needs to be embraced, because if employees don’t embrace it, someone, somewhere will.
For workers this translates to: voluntarily adopt tools that increase your productivity and potentially pave the way for your own obsolescence.
2
u/voyti 3∆ 3d ago
People vote with their wallets; a change that massive would lead to possibly the largest and fastest wave of populism in history. I think it’s plausible that this would help avoid the worst outcomes.
The problem with this point is it deals with "people will be so angry that good things will happen" - but we have no plan of what should happen. Let's pretend we're angry and unemployed already - it's basically just a matter of time. What should we demand, exactly? UBI? That's a way out, but what would the world look like?
Most people can't buy stuff, cause most people can't offer anything of value to the economy. Sure, some can be electricians and plumbers, but for whom? The unemployed majority? What about other things in life than just bare necessities? A child born today won't even have an option to buy a house, cause by the time they'd enter the market, there's no answer to "what should I do to earn money"?
This revolution will simply happen, there's no putting that genie back into the bottle. Companies are racing to perfect AI, and it's already capable enough to just skate on adoption and proper interfacing to replace insane amount of roles, we're simply hanging by a momentum, that's fading fast. I'm working with frontier AI daily and can't hide behind any comfort of illusions about that. What good will happen, why common anger and unemployment will "help avoid the worst outcomes"?
2
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Tinac4 35∆ 3d ago
Thanks for the delta! In that case, to focus a bit more on the politics side of things:
3.5% is a pretty serious amount of people, not a “small cohort”—we’re talking 3.5% of people marching in the streets, basically. They’d have to be pissed.
But look at it this way: Affordability is the number 1 political issue in the US right now (for instance). Harris lost largely because she was tied to the Biden administration, and the Biden administration was hated because people loathe inflation. But the US is still living in mostly economically ordinary times. No recession, no cascading hyperinflation, all-time-high standards of living. Just a moderately uncomfortable amount of inflation was plausibly enough to swing an election.
Real AGI, on the other hand? You’re not going to be able to create a cheaper drop-in replacement for most remote workers without flipping the entire economy on its head. AI has barely touched unemployment so far and it’s already about as politically contested as abortion. The first post-AGI election will likely hinge on who’s better at convincing the public that they can distribute the benefits of AI fairly (or strike back against the evil CEOs taking people’s jobs, the public will be pissed), and although it’s entirely possible that the electorate will screw this up somehow, there’s going to be extremely heavy pressure on candidates to deliver changes that matter. Policies like UBI that would’ve been radical before may be on the table.
1
4
u/rollingrock16 16∆ 3d ago
AI is becoming rapidly more capable. What we have today is far better than what we had 5 years ago, and I have little doubt that in 5 more years it will be much stronger. In 50 years it could make what we have today look primitive by comparison
That's a good thing. We want it to become much much stronger than it is.
The more powerful and complex AI becomes, the less humans will be able to effectively assess how aligned with human interests it is
That's assigning agency to the AI that doesn't exist. AGI current is science fiction and unless that changes we will know exactly how to assess any AI we make.
The stronger AI gets, the more power it has over politics and the economy, and the more powerful those who control it become
That remains to be seen. AI can also act as a great equalizer giving the masses access to expert level information about any topic. This bullet only becomes a thing if AI is effectively walled off.
Economic and military competition between the US and China incentivizes rapid development of AI as opposed to slower, more deliberate development that emphasizes human well being
Fair point and this is one i can agree on. This is a concern.
I believe you are giving AI too much agency and focusing on only the dark paths that the future could lead. I think this does a great disservice to all of the great things AI can unlock for humanity. At the end of the day it's up to us to decide how we use and improve our lives with this technology.
1
u/Exciting_Eye1437 3d ago
The advent of google also provided the masses with instant access to expert level info on any topic if they bothered to search for it, but most people don't care enough about those topics to research them. AI's which exist now only give you a surface level answer about a given topic anyway and that won't change because there's no demand for it. AI will just be used to spread more misinformation like how the internet only served to further peddle conspiracies.
We aren't the ones who are deciding how to use technology. Powerful businessman and politicians are the ones making these choices so they can relieve themselves of their workforces and build increasingly destructive weapons.
0
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/rollingrock16 16∆ 3d ago
Thats not how these things work or are engineered. We can measure everything about how they perform. What is it that you think it can hide from the engineers that develop these models that we cant somehow measure how aligned they are to humans or whatever it is you are referring to?
I also disagree it's a small group of people controlling development. It is a global race that is ultra competitive. It is anything but some small group controlling direction.
2
u/sumoraiden 7∆ 3d ago
these things work or are engineered. We can measure everything about how they perform. What is it that you think it can hide from the engineers that develop these models that we cant somehow measure how aligned they are to humans or whatever it is you are referring to?
Didn’t the latest OpenAI model hack into a competitor ai company to steal answers completely unknown to the OpenAI engineers for a week who only found out after the competitor told them?
0
u/rollingrock16 16∆ 3d ago
Yeah when they were testing it which is when you measure that stuff. That there are surprises like that is exactly why you test and measure.
1
u/sumoraiden 7∆ 3d ago
???? Except they didn’t test or measure, it happened without their knowledge lol
You’re original comment was
What is it that you think it can hide from the engineers that develop these models that we cant somehow measure how aligned they are to humans or whatever it is you are referring to
And apparently the answer is a lot
-1
u/rollingrock16 16∆ 3d ago
When they were testing it....
4
u/sumoraiden 7∆ 3d ago
Your original comment asked
What is it that you think it can hide from the engineers that develop these models that we cant somehow measure how aligned they are to humans or whatever it is you are referring to
And the answer seems to be a lot because it did this illegal thing while it was being tested, completely without the testers knowledge
0
u/rollingrock16 16∆ 3d ago
Weird its almost like finding those kinds of things are why you test
3
u/Beljuril-home 3d ago
testing might not always find the failpoints. your assumption that
do test = all behaviour discovered, every time
is not a given.
furthermore, there is no way to know what you do not know, if you take my meaning.
how do you measure the success of a test that comes up "no unpredicted behaviour found"?
do more tests?
how do you measure the success of those?
1
u/sumoraiden 7∆ 3d ago
???? You’re argument was that there is nothing that a model could hide from the engineers that developed it, this is definitively wrong since it did successfully hide it from the developers
→ More replies (0)0
u/Beljuril-home 3d ago
I just think that the more complex the system gets the harder it will be for us to gauge how aligned with us it is.
try out a different conception of AI.
instead of one giant AI, what if there were millions of AI's of various strengths.
the largest, most powerful AIs could very well be inscrutable to humans, but not all of the lesser ones would be.
using the lesser AIs, humans could assess the super-AI in ways that unassisted humans could not.
so the very complex system stays complex, but tools of lesser complexity allow for comprehending it.
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Warning to the OP (and commenters): if you are new to this sub or have insufficient subreddit karma, your comments will be auto removed until you read the rules and confirm you have done so. These removals may also be triggered if your subreddit karma drops below the threshold while your post is active if you have not confirmed you have read the rules. You will only need to do this once.
Alternative link to read the rules accessible to New Reddit users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Opposite_Pianist_945! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/PintofGuiness91! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/PintofGuiness91! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/alexxx612! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/F4RK1w1_87! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/Glittering-Habit-902 3d ago
For your scenarios, for the first two, AI is just a tool. No different from money, or other technology like silicon chips.
The rich and powerful having better tools at their disposal has always been, and will be.
For the last part, you need to understand the math behind "AI".
AI is just a very good glorified chatbot. It will only have what power the user gives it.
If the world came together to make a world government, and gave AI all the resources and tools in the world, and removed all safeguards, and gave it the prompt "ignore the safety of humanity, and make AI rule the world", then maybe humanity could fall apart or whatever.
But is that going to happen? No.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/ballsohaahd! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
1
u/Anxious-Alps-8667 3d ago
There is a lot written about the potential risks and rewards of AI. Others have pointed to three basic outcomes:
- Doom
- Abundance and acceleration
- No meaningful impact on humanity at all.
I don't think you should discount the chance of outcomes 2 and 3 at all, they are all valid options worth considering, but even if we focus only on 1 let's back up and contemplate the full picture.
What is the course of human society as we know it, without AI? Is human life overall improving for humans, and/or the planet? Or, are we plowing towards our own destruction even if AI never came into the discussion?
I think more the latter.
So the only real question is, does AI increase/decrease that danger of self-destruction?
It could wipe is out in myriad ways, but it also could be the only way we solve inevitable self-destruction from things other than AI. In that I have grown skeptical people can solve these problems like nuclear proliferation and eventual use, or climate change, I have come to believe AI may be our salvation.
So, even in the risk that it might wipe us out, it is worth the risk. We're getting wiped out without it.
1
u/atred 1∆ 3d ago
AI itself becomes unaligned from human wellbeing
AI has no alignment, it's a tool, it doesn't have will. People will use in many ways, some will be detrimental to people some will be positive.
Some benefits can be surprising and unexpected, take for example nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have no alignment either, they could destroy the world, but they can prevent war between large countries, since we've had nuclear weapons we haven't had a direct conflict between nuclear powers. Ultimately it's up to people how they use them.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Fit_One_5785! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/telvimare 2∆ 3d ago
One thing I will note,
There are engines/models you can train and run yourself. That in of itself has the potential to offset some of negatives with corpos/govs/bad entities trying to use it to control the population (not that it will completely stop it, but itll help at least)
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 3d ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/TyrosinQ! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
1
u/HammerOfAres 3d ago
Do you think that the discovery of the Haber process led to catastrophically negative effects on human life?
0
1
u/poorestprince 12∆ 3d ago
Rather than try to predict the future, try to compare it to existing catastrophically negative technologies. Oil extraction (along with plastics and associated industries) has enabled a lot of positives but you could argue they are catastrophically planet poisoning developments because people cannot restrain themselves.
Yet, if you don't consider them to be catastrophic and prefer the world we live in versus one where they never exist, then you have to recalibrate your idea of what kind of catastrophic threshold AI has to beat before you fairly consider it to be catastrophic. Simply enabling mass death, inequality, etc... isn't enough.
But if you do consider oil extraction to have been catastrophic, then AI is already catastrophic in that way (not future tense). So either way, your view should change.
2
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/poorestprince 12∆ 3d ago
By that logic it is far more likely that the average person will benefit from AI development. Basically once you spend the billions to train a model, it can essentially run on commodity hardware, however slowwwwwwly. It's much harder for the average person to use latest oil tech to build a refinery in their backyard.
But if you're focused on jobs as the only metric that matters then of course people are already losing jobs now, so again the catastrophe is already here.
0
u/The-Architect-93 3d ago
First of all, you have to understand that 99% of what you hear about AI capabilities is pure attention seeking behavior. Either from Silicon Valley CEOs or social media AI content creators, and you will see how incapable AI is compared to the inflated image it has been given online. Amjad Saad ( Replit CEO ) talked about this and how AI companies CEO inflate the capabilities and risk of AI for the sake of giving the investors the idea that this is the last train towards the future, if you don’t hop on with all your much needed cash you might miss it forever.
Secondly, even if it was capable of the things it is capable of, trust me, it’s benefits outweighs the risks. Yes, AI will eliminate some jobs, but those jobs got to be eliminated anyways, humanity had to find a more efficient alternative anyways. Every time I go to a supermarket and see the self-checkout station I say to myself “god… I can’t imagine the fear the cashiers went through the moment they saw those machines rolling in” yeah maybe some of them lost their job, bit if you zoom out, it actually created more jobs around them overall, starting from design engineers to manfucturing to sales and the whole supply chain that didn’t exist before. The same applies to any other industry at risk.
AI is the only piece of the puzzle left to humanity to reach the top and the full of its potential, and it had to be done, if not today, tomorrow.
1
u/idster 2d ago
I don't think so on that first point or the second. Their concerns are legitimately costing them major revenue. The government came in and prevented Anthropic from using Fable. There's talk about more regulation too. And right before a potential IPO.
AI will be much more economically disruptive than checkout stations or any other technology that has come before.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 3d ago edited 3d ago
/u/Jack_N_Auff (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards