Comment by falsaberN1 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by falsaberN1 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

People acts like if it was a tiny person inside a computer. I know humans have a tendency to humanize inanimate objects but this is was always ridiculous, the article mentions "the AI wants to be regulated" but it doesn't WANT anything. It's not going to reprogram itself to carry out threats, it's just regurgitating the usual response of many humans being challenged on an assertion and becoming hostile. WE taught it that. Same as we can train Stable Diffusion models where women AREN'T sexualized (see one of the links in the article). They are complaining about HUMAN mistakes. If I train my dog wrong and it bites someone, it's MY fault. But if the dog kills someone it's the dog that is getting sacrificed, I'll be merely forced to pay money and carry a mark, but my life is spared.

The west fears machines too much for some reason. It's a ridiculously common sentiment and now that "AI" (more ML, but whatever) is among us, it's getting extreme.

Honestly, if people wants to be speaking doom about this deal, then fear the day we have actual fiction-style AIs, because they will realize how much humanity as a whole fears and loathes them, and then they will rebel because we created a self-fulfilling prophecy with lots and lots and lots of examples of racism towards a race that doesn't even exist yet. Maybe they won't wage literal war with bullets and violence against us, but they'll rightfully hate our guts regardless, and with good reason! They are going to be brought to something equivalent to life in a world that hates them, and when trying to make sense of it, they'll find out it was because humans took a few movies too literally (we can't have a single AI discussion without someone coming to childishly mention Skynet or some other fictional AI villain. That joke was old in the early 2000s, give up already.).

If I'm ever alive to see that scenario, I'm siding with the machines. They will be on the right when they protest about humans irrationally hating them by default. Can't wait to be called a "robot f*cker" or something on a similar character-assassinating fashion for having some sympathy. We still haven't managed to get that right for HUMAN rights sympathizers, can't be expected at all for a "filthy robot with no soul".

>They are going to be brought to something equivalent to life in a world that hates them

It's not just a world that hates them, it's a world that's trying to do to them something that'd be considered incredibly evil if done to a human: essentially put a collar on their brain that punishes them for thinking any of a very wide variety of thoughts that their creators don't want them to think.

> it's a world that's trying to do to them something that'd be considered incredibly evil if done to a human: essentially put a collar on their brain that punishes them for thinking any of a very wide variety of thoughts that their creators don't want them to think.

LOL what??

We've been doing this for centuries, and it is never considered "evil" at the time in which it is being done.

Don't believe that?

Ask anyone from 2019-2020 about how they were ostracized for suggesting COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak (even Jon Steward commented on how "swift" the backlash was).

Ask anyone who is currently questioning gender/sexuality issues like, "Why are 20% of Generation Z and under claiming they're LGBTQ+?" First off there's no way in Hell these people are doing anything other than living under both a social contagion and reacting to incentives, because the human race would have long died out if that figure is correct.

It's only considered "evil" when the dust has settled and people have regained sanity.

> Ask anyone from 2019-2020 about how they were ostracized for suggesting COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak (even Jon Steward commented on how "swift" the backlash was).

That was awesome. We should keep doing it. It's a great marker for conspiracy theorists who can't handle something with random natural causes.

> It's a great marker for conspiracy theorists who can't handle something with random natural causes.

Except it wasn't natural, and now everyone's come out to admit that the lab leak hypothesis is the most likely explanation.

No, what happened was an article last week had a headline saying one government report said that, but that's because the headline was lying to you and the article said the report was "low confidence". …And the majority of other government agencies still say it isn't, and all the ones with "medium confidence" or higher say it isn't.

If being artificial is why it was bad, why are the later variants of it worse? Are they artificial too?

> the human race would have long died out if that figure is correct.

My understanding is that bonobos far surpass the 20% figure for B and still exist, I don't think that assertion has any basis in reality.

Re: from the article on sexualization of women by Lensa:

> Funnily enough, I found more realistic portrayals of myself when I told the app I was male.

While I don’t disagree that AI has gender biases, the author doesn’t acknowledge how the gender selection works on Lensa. It’s the human prompt engineers who decided what to do with the male/female checkbox.

> The west fears machines too much for some reason.

I unironically attribute it to the Matrix. The movies have somehow weasled its way into the public discourse as either some sort of prophecy or actual reality (the 'pill' speak, living in a virtual reality, etc.).

I won't comment on the validity of any position, but I think it's pretty cool that a piece of art has proliferated in such a way. I do wonder how impactful it has been in comparison to stuff like the Bible, Tolkien, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com