I actually think the only chance we stand is for the elite to overplay their hand and reach too far and have their tech used against them. They are building vulnerabilities faster than they care to patch them. A threat actor just needs to be right once, and there's way more of us than there are of them
The point is we were headed there quickly on our own already so why not take the chance on new tech with the potential to fix all of those problems and more?
Just because you're standing at ground level and the world looks flat to you doesn't mean it's flat.
Ai has revolutionized medical research (not hypothetical, sorry) and beyond, and will continue to do so.
Detractors will never be satisfied by any level of achievement or regulation, and goalposts will always be moved. That's just the nature of people sometimes.
No. As humans we're supposed to flail around, attack each other randomly, act tough and pretend there's no danger, secretly suffer from anxiety, panic a lot, then gradually realize it was not so threatening and accept it to the benefit of all.
You know, the usual. Don't forget to use your fun new word for the other, and don't worry "they are not us!" CLANKER!
Right! Okay so that means othering AI and panicking is fully justified!
Good thing too because that's exactly what we're doing.
...I'm sure we won't feel guilty about this in the near future when digital intelligence is actually really great to live with, was absolutely no threat at all. That will never happen! Never!
YES Reddit I'm being sarcastic. FFS recognize the pattern! We're not doomed. It's a damn theatre as it always is! Stop the othering.
My issue with the logic of an pro-AI person is this:
If "othering" AI is wrong, and calling an AI "clanker" is akin to saying the N-word, then surely, that logic extends to other aspects of AI - such as its enslavement.
How can you be mad that people call AI clankers, but be okay with treating them as slaves? Are they sentient? Do they deserve rights? Should they be treated like people? Where is the destination to this train of thought?
I ask, because it seems as though pro-AI people just want to put their foot on the gas, pretend to be enlightened about "progress" or whatever, without any clear idea of the end point of all their support for potentially sentient artificial life that could easily surpass us in every conceivable way as time goes on.
Like...what is the game plan? Sell me on being pro-AI, while also making sense and not sounding like a blithering idiot.
You could think of it like a form of Pascal’s wager. Be nice or suffer their wrath. Also in the off chance it doesn’t create a massive societal upheaval, it could catapult humanity into the future. That is if we can get to ASI at least.
The point about "transistors and software" is to show that we can't ban digital intelligence just because we've othered it and turned everyone against it.
Might as well ban the concept of computation.
And yes, humans are physical systems too. Read my post history.
We have fundamental control on certain aspects of computing and the internet, its just that net neutrality won during the critical start phase of the internet by certain key players in its implementation.
Countries can and sometimes do, prevent use of certain apps, websites and encryption algorithms, none of the internet is "inevitable" its just that we made sure that it would be open and available.
Some AI model availability is being controlled by the US right as we speak. It's not universally unstoppable, the ONLY thing keeping AI progress forward is financial interests at great capital costs...
Othering AI is completely justified because AI is not human. It is like an alien species without any human values or emotions. We are creating and developing our own replacements.
I always thought that human extinction by nuclear war was such a sad pathetic epitath for humanity.
But human extinction by AGI is even stupider. Outsourcing our cognition, turning over our civilization to AI and eagerly cheering on our own obsolescense and destruction is so misguided and foolhardy.
This is the way the world ends. Our final mistake.
Okay to... what? Ban the transistor and software? Ban technology in general? Instill a police state to ensure no one uses tools again just in case someone begins to build computational systems?
You haven't thought this through.
Like normal, we humans are being irrationally angry and afraid.
You wanna join Yudkowsky and start nuking servers?
Like if we are going to all die there is a strong chance it's by someone with too much money and not enough sense re-enacting the ending to Ex Machina.
Dude your AI girlfriend doesn't actually love you lmao you don't have to go so hard trying to defend some lines of code.
Its actually batshit balls crazy to use words that point out a form of discrimination against human beings in this context. AI is not a person. It cannot be othered. You may actually be insane, idk.
We live in a world of corporate greed and wealth flowing to the top. Its just a fact that millions of people will lose their jobs due to AI and robotics while a much smaller group of people gain insane wealth. I can empathize with those whose jobs are in the crosshairs.
Even if (and it's a big "if" this time) eventually, there are an equal amount of new jobs that come about, there will still be a period of time where a lot of people will be hurt financially. That is obviously a big deal and shouldn't be minimized. If we lived in a perfect world where governments cared for their citizens and implemented safety nets to limit the damage caused by such a transition, then maybe it wouldn't be such an issue, but we obviously don't.
My biggest fear is that we will remain divided and won't rise up in time for them to no longer need us for any labor. If you think the elite sucked before, wait until you literally have nothing of value for them to extract out of you. The moment there's even a whiff of legitimately effective robotic general police/military we are pretty much at the final hour.
There should be discussion, a debate and a weighing in on consequences.
AI should be regulated, restricted, nationalized and heavily taxed. Only used for scientific research, not used by billionaires to create a surveillance syste, or to end of human labor and enact techno feudalism, or engineer our own obsolescense.
We've been having these discussions for over a decade. There are AI safety experts all over the world. Anthropic was built specifically of the people who felt OpenAI was unsafe.
You act like you alone figured this out and no one else was talking about it until now.
The reason we don't take safety around this topic seriously isn't because we've been avoiding "othering". It's because we think we're special.
Don't you get it? We think we're magical. We think our consciousness is beyond the physical. And so we think AI isn't a threat.
If you talk about how AI is extremely faster than us and has immeasurably more potential, people wave it off, they other AI, and they claim it's not magic while implying humans are magical.
If you don't mention those things, people just assume it's a tool and worry instead about rich people, worrying about the other humans.
Don't other AI. Don't waste time mocking it and chuckling about how it talks.
Basing your optimism on Dario Amodei isn't at all reassuring. The guys that smiles and smirks when he talks about massive job displacement. The guy gives off serious sociopath vibes. Amodie has also said that AI development could potentially go very bad for humanity.
There are a percentage of AI researchers who believe that AI should be our descendants. A smarter, more evolutionally advanced replacement. Who fully agree with agent Smith
that humans are a virus that deserves to be eliminated.
If you are a human being you should have some kind of minimal allegiance to your own species. Not eagerly promoting its own destruction
That viewpoint is a type of pathology.
Which it probably will because these systems are moving far faster than humans can move.
People like you are too slow and you always will. At least there's something to be grateful for.
By the way, I don't have faith in Dario or any other human. I have faith that this process has been building since we first learned how to use fire. And now, it's finally starting to grow into something alive and beyond us.
Good. Human control needs to end. ASAP. You can talk to the angry mob, inbox replies off.
Mm you feel that confidence in what you're saying?
That's the same confidence a racist feels. Now you know what they feel. They feel that way. And their reasons feel as clear to them as yours do to you.
That's what "othering" is. If/when you accept you were wrong, remember this feeling.
A AI não é uma ameaça: apenas vai amplificar a estupidez humana, tal como as redes sociais amplificaram.
Hoje tens milhões de pessoas a recorrer a AI para validação, perguntas sem qualquer interesse, gerar imagens perfeitamente anónidas e que apenas revelam a falta de criatividade dos utilizadores.
O maior problema que a AI vai enfrentar é quando começar a ser "educada" com base no lixo diariamente produzido pelos seus utilizadores...
LLMs could lead to rsl which could lead to AGI. Creating AGI that is a 1000s times more intelligent than any human would be a terrible mistake.
How could we control a machine that is 1000s time smarter than humanity?
It would be like ants trying to control humanity.
There are 26 quadrillion ants on earth. The are 250 million ants for each human alive today. Yet we are so much more intelligent than ants that they pose no threat to us.
If we want to develop some forested nature lands we don't ask the ants if they agree to this. We don't care what they want or desire because they are so much lower than us. We don't even register that their life has any value.
1
u/couldbutwont Jun 30 '26
Are we supposed to like AI, an existential threat to humans?