Hacker News Reader

Comment by ofou | Hacker News Reader

My point is that Human + AI = AI. There's no AI around the corner as far as we know, but you can argue that the portion of machine intelligence is growing at a crazy rate. So, we're becoming slowly an AI as you correctly pointed out, maybe it's just plain evolution. I wonder if no AI comes out after all (by itself), we'll be the One created through ourselves.

View on HN

Human society is part AI already. Humans to human society is as cells to a human being.

I disagree, Humans already have a neural interface with AI via the visual cortex and the auditory nerve. You are forming a neural link with an AI when you have a conversation with your Google Home.

I imagine a electrode neural link would with much the same way, but faster and less disruptive. Humans would off load tasks like: information discovery, complex mathematical calculations, and making arrangements for holidays to their AI companion.

Big difference is that devices that work with these interfaces (i.e. screens and speakers) are loosely coupled and maintain context with the rest of the environment. You can remove yourself from their influence in an instant.

I disagree with the premise that the fact that I can see my living room in my peripheral vision reduces the influence of my media consumption.

The kwown argument that <<you're already a cyborg>> seems to fit nicely with the current status of humanity. The problem I see lies when you decide to integrate these machine learning models (not "sentient" AIs) as part of neural substrate at a convinient broader bandwidth. We are already seen the disasters of biases, filter bubbles and many more to come. There is a huge gap between a cyborg (or Augmented human) and an AGI. The latter doesn't exist yet but we are slowly building it through the links of our mind. That is both the real summoning the demon and quantum leap of faith in evolution.

I see the topics of biased information and neural input bandwidth as unrelated as the current rate of bandwidth is sufficient. As you mentioned, humans have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to whip themselves up into a frenzy throughout all of recorded history. So it’s a bit strange to suggest we shouldn’t adopt a technology on the basis that it might encourage us to do what we are already doing.

Also filter bubbles in media have generally been created by quite basic algorithms that only meet the definition of AI when you really stretch it. You might argue that a more advanced AI might create more toxic bubbles, but it seems to me that our society has just about perfected toxic bubble creation and any further advancements in the field would suffer severely from diminishing returns.

Taking very Elon's words: “This was futile. I tried for years. Nobody listened.”. If going backwards is just not an option, we must be more conspicuous of the dangers of new high tech deployments. I think everyone here share the same feeling: thrill but chilling at the same time. It's Inevitable by the way, on the Kevin Kelly's sense of the word: this is our technium taking shape and we better learn how to deal with it fast, like it or not.

The AI is already here. It's called technocapitalism. We're not becoming an AI, we're being controlled and modified by one, so as to better fit its teleology.

Is anybody else sick about literally everything people don't like being <xy>capitalism?

I'm more sick of <xy>capitalism being a thing that people like unconditionally.

Posting on HN is the height of capitalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com