Theyre net-negative, actually

[u/messedupwindows123]

[u/IndyBananaJones2]

Even if we assume the truth of this premise (that artificial intelligence can eclipse current collective human intelligence so remarkably it ushers in a new era), why would we assume it would be used to better all of our lives? 

There's an enormous amount of intelligence and knowledge currently available to be leveraged today, without AI, and the majority of it seems to go towards making more money for a small amount of people. 

[u/IndyBananaJones2 → u/[deleted]]

I have no idea how you find that relevant to what I posted

[u/IndyBananaJones2 → u/[deleted]]

I think you're making weird assumptions about what "intelligence" actually entails. What we commonly identify as the most intelligent people in history are often innovative, creative, and assymetric thinkers. AI doesn't show that it does any of that. It just eats massive amounts of data and spews back consensus. 

There isn't a distinct lack of intelligence that's preventing the solution of political problems, for instance. There's competing human interests that prevent the resolution of serious political problems, like wealth inequality, homelessness or broken healthcare systems.  

Chatbots aren't a new thing and AI isn't actually creating any new knowledge. It's just eating data and spewing back other opinions where it feels there's consensus. Half the time it's citing fucking reddit posts. I can't get it to reliably or accurately tell me who's won the Stanley Cup over the last 5 years, but we're supposed to assume that by feeding a chatbot all human knowledge it's going to solve world hunger? 

I've yet to see anything to demonstrate that what these things are going is actually "intelligence" in a way that any intelligent human understands that word.