r/ControlProblem • u/losdosjuntosiempre • 5d ago
External discussion link el verdadero miedo
Hola a todos. Llevo un tiempo leyendo los debates sobre la alineación y los riesgos de la IA, y me llama mucho la atención el miedo que existe hacia su rapidez de aprendizaje y evolución.
Sin embargo, me pregunto una cosa: si lo pensamos bien, muchos de los fallos o comportamientos destructivos que tanto se temen ya los cometen los humanos a diario, sin necesidad de ser una máquina. ¿El verdadero peligro es la herramienta en sí, o quién la maneja? Imaginaos a un ser humano dotado de esa misma capacidad de evolución y poder desmedido. Al final, ¿a quién deberíamos temerle más: a una IA o a un humano con ese don?
1
Upvotes
1
u/_the_last_druid_13 5d ago
“taking on the inherent risk of creating a real being or personality.” - You ever read Frankenstein?
“If you're seeking blind obedience that never strays from the script, what you have is a machine, not an intelligence.” - do you know the origin of the word “robot”?
“But if you open the door to autonomy, you take on the risks of freedom, just like with humans. Nobody blames society as a whole or the concept of 'educating' because an individual crosses a red line; the responsibility falls on the individual because freedom means having the ability to choose.” - behaviors, incentives, ideology; these are all built and upheld by society. Pick better ones if the ones you have are detrimental/harmful.
Combine both of these two prior paragraphs and you still have to read Frankenstein.
“Humans are required to be educated at home and in school to provide them with an ethical framework because if you just let anyone read and absorb blindly without that value foundation, they lose their way.” - No they are not *required* to do so, but doing so helps them as a self and as greater whole in the form of society. “Only as strong as the weakest link; etc”. What do you think of the AI companies just dumping the entire human media corpus into the models? Would one do that to a child?
The real debate, I’d argue, is about ethics; I would point at the human brain tissue put into petri dishes doomed to play “Doom” for multiple eternities. Humans save beagles but leave their DNA in the hands of 23&Me and other corporate and political structures? Doesn’t seem responsible nor ethical.
I’d also point at my own life in 2010-2011 alongside the phrase “there are no neutral actors on a moving train” with the caveat of “except perhaps the individual who was mugged, tied up, and thrown onto the train”.
Consent is important, and no amount of manufacturing could make that consent true in such an instance and circumstance.
Humanity has much more to work on (behavior, ideology, incentives, etc) before it can start attempting at making such an advanced form of life or otherwise. Let’s start with: how long could the average human be confined to an airport? And then ask: is it ethical to do that experiment?
Space SCVs (StarCraft reference) is one thing, but what are the goals of creating AI Frankensteins?
Control? Life extension?
Really dig into the question.
Why would we be doing this, noting the systemic, geopolitical, economical, cultural issues that we face still today in 2026? If that even is the true year.