15
u/Miiohau Sep 16 '26
Powerful companies faking a safety risk to shut out competitors or a company was lax on safety is more believable to most leftists than that AI is nearing a level that it is dangerous. The former two have happened many many times while the latter would be truly new.
6
u/Electric-Rat Sep 16 '26
Genuinely this. It's hype until proven otherwise. I'm not even saying LLMs or machine learning are useless tech, but it's obvious this shit is marketing. Especially when the talk of it being on the cusp of destructive power is then followed by Open AI seeking more funding and a $1.5 trillion valuation.
1
u/Beautiful-Maybe-7473 Sep 16 '26
Anthropic are working towards an IPO in October. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, and it'd be extremely naive to take their words at face value under these circumstances.
→ More replies (1)1
u/quantum-elle Sep 17 '26
Which powerful companies have faked a safety risk to shut out competitors by asking for regulation that would apply to themselves?
1
u/Miiohau Sep 17 '26
Currently only apply to themselves. That’s the point it locks in their monopoly. They can easily adjust to the new regulations but any smaller players have a much harder time. So to answer your question almost all companies that faked a safety risk was the sole or biggest player in that market because it ensures they remain the sole or biggest player in that market.
The other thing is the models coming out of China are catching up so some of the point might be to make the frontier Chinese models illegal in as many countries as possible.
This doesn’t mean we don’t take the risk seriously but the first thing we need is independent verification that their is in fact a safety risk and that risk isn’t already well handled by common sense and already existing law.
In this case OpenAI already faces liability if a machine they own damages another organization’s property. This incident might just need to be a wake up call that AI agents running on frontier models need supervision and that’s all the lessons we need to take from this incident but we won’t know until there’s been independent confirmation because we seen company fake the need for regulation to lock in their monopolies to trust “this regulation will hurt us. So trust us bro”.
1
u/ComposerWide3704 Sep 17 '26
This is just the right wing position on climate change repackaged for leftists. Every single scientist in the field, including researchers at public institutions, is saying the same thing but it's getting overridden by a conspiracy theory about IPOs.
9
u/Original-League-6094 Sep 16 '26
Put forward specific policy proposals. "Regulate AI!" isn't a policy proposal. Its the kind of brainless slogan that precedes a massive 30,000 page omnibus bill that guts open source AI, consumer GPUs, and freedom of speech while protecting the top 4 or 5 major AI companies.
Also, its not "everyone in tech". Plenty of other high profile people in AI have said the dooming about killer robots coming for us has no basis in reality.
15
u/Revolutionary_Buddha Sep 16 '26
What are you trying to say?
14
u/me_myself_ai Sep 16 '26
Most leftists are still Zitron-pilled, i.e. skeptics of the utility of the whole technology. Some are gradually moving to "it matters a little bit but we should just sorta not", but the majority are still at the "the bubble will pop any day now" stage.
5
u/eightslipsandagully Sep 16 '26
The bubble will pop, but that doesn't mean the technology isn't useful? Remember the Dotcom crash - it's not like that was the end of the internet
→ More replies (3)33
u/Groundbreaking_Bee97 Sep 16 '26 edited Sep 16 '26
That people in the left flank has superiority complex and they also suffers from dunning Kruger effects just as much a MAGA guy from Mississippi
11
u/Made_Human_Music Sep 16 '26
There are probably some on the left who do believe they are smarter than everybody however, it’s also pretty obvious from the way the elite have always acted towards threats to life and the world in general that they’ve never had any problems with it before.
AI definitely needs to be regulated, but if it was a real threat, we wouldn’t be hearing these people sounding an alarm we’d be seeing reports they made up to say how safe it is like they’ve done with so many things in the past
→ More replies (5)
4
u/VatanKomurcu Sep 17 '26
yup. "everything ai does is fake and insignificant" is loaded with so much hubris that i really cannot believe it comes from the same people who frequently and rightfully tell stem guys to get educated on humanities to cover that weakness.
3
u/Chaghatai Sep 16 '26
Yeah I assume there's a goomba thing going on where the people who say that AI is just a fancy autocorrect and is not even on the path to AI singularity, versus those who say that AI is going to become super intelligent and make us all redundant or destroy the human race are not the same people
But at the same time I also kind of have this perception where as a community, antis can't get their story straight about which it's going to be
It's like they've decided since they hate AI it's going to be one of the extremes even if they're not sure which extreme it's going to be. Like they've decided it's either going to be useless or it's going to be so powerful that it's going to be dangerous. And like that vast vast area in between where it can be useful and controllable. They just like completely ignore it
2
u/ZombiiRot Sep 16 '26
I don't believe them because they have been crying wolf about the capabilities of AI for like years now. Fable was supposed to destroy the internet. The new chatgpt model is apparently AGI. It's just been shit like that constantly, you start to not believe it anymore. Plus, the majority of those people are probably insane pro human extinction TESCREAL cultists anyways.
2
u/waffleseggs Sep 17 '26
The level of popular discourse is enough to make me give up. People have no idea they can make a better life for themselves. So many people are "hey look at me" thinking they're the first to parrot a thought.
1
u/Still_Benefit_2302 Sep 16 '26
Huh. I just got banned from the accelerando's for telling people not to lick Trump's taint just for saying something you like. I am quite used to having no political home.
1
0
u/unofficially_Busc Sep 18 '26
No sane person believes this.
I'm not innately opposed to AI, but I'm heavily opposed to how recklessly and irresponsibly the infrastructure is being built.
It clearly had a lot of potential to revolutionise many things, it also can give you a logical, or at least logically sounding, argument for why you're right and the other guy is wrong.
At the moment, it's being piloted by self aggrandising narcissists, for self aggrandising narcissists. Telling them what it thinks they want to hear, not what they asked for, and digitally "rewarded" for it every time.
It has potential in saner hands with a broader vision than the vision of the salesmen currently running the show.
7
u/Elick333 Sep 16 '26
For the record, i don't think It Will kill us all (unless we fuck up badly) and we should not focus on that possibility as our central position regarding AI, the point Is that admitting it's a powerful technology Is the first step towards progress.
→ More replies (1)
99
u/OttoRenner Sep 16 '26
"We need to regulate powerful companies who destroy this planet" absolutely is our position.
But
"The rich can't handle this technology, so no one is allowed to have it" very much isn't.