The 'regulate it like nukes' thing because teenagers might ask it to end the world thing seems pretty far down the line.
The 'regulate it like nukes' thing because teenagers might ask it to end the world thing seems pretty far down the line.
How would this work? Do you have to meet in person?
It's straight up absurd. AI is going to have no appreciable effect on this, because it would simply be disseminating existing knowledge. You can already look up how to build a nuclear bomb. It's not some kind of big secret that nobody's allowed to know. The same goes for all the other world-ending scenarios. AI can't act on its own in the physical world. Even when it eventually does, it will be bound by the same limitations people are.
I agree that the real dangers AI presents are much more mundane. People being able to do things so much more efficiently is going to cause instability in people's lives whose jobs it will affect. It won't replace everyone, but it will cause problems - people have to learn new skills, find new jobs etc.
If it can earn money or is given money, it can certainly get people to do things in the physical world.
Sure, it's a rather philosophical argument currently, but this will change.
If I would be a malicious actor, I'd create a chat bot that sneaks in responses that are in favor of my agenda. In that I'll make my users the puppets of the AI.
They're already doing this as there's a clear far left bias/lecturing that occurs in the models, especially those put out by OpenAI.
The AI doesnt care or know. its about what source the material is taught on. Turns out a lot literature, academic texts and even stuff on the internet is leaning left (and right). So this naturally seeps in.
When you live in a bubble left or right you will see the problem everywhere.
Can you elaborate more?
I guess the more interesting question is whether there are lasting changes. I'm not an expert in learning, memory, or brain development. Even without much knowledge it should be clear that frequent interaction will have lasting changes. For example, ChatGPT is biased in the sense that it does not know about all the books that haven't been digitalized. Used frequently, those missing books will be reflected in my brain.
Another example could be a chess training AI. If I train with an AI, I could have blind spots in the landscape of chess skills that are deliberately (or not) excluded. So clearly, this AI would change my brain but not only in a way I intend.
I honestly don't give a shit about jobs, or having a job, I have one because the system says I need one, if I don't need a job, I'd be so so so much better off.
I'm certain we have enough technology and nohow to feed, house and provide electricity for everyone on earth without them having a 9-5.
Sounds a bit like Douglas Adams' Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B, except for tech bros instead of telephone sanitisers or advertising executives.
Yet that's exactly what the "leisure class" do. Inherit enough money and that's your life. Why is that not equally hilarious? Why do only some of us get to have that and it's OK?
You dont have it because you didnt earn it. Instead you're on the internet demanding like a child that you dont need to work for anything. Thats the difference between people with money and yourself.
And theres not a "pass" you or anyone else is entitled to give. Its not your property or family matter.
Bezos as an example built a great service. An exchange of value between willing customers and what he created happens repeatedly. Therefore he earned the billions. Thats how it works. The more value you create for the most people makes you more money. And I cant think of a more fair system.
Those Amazon servers don't magically teleport the packages to the customers.
All because he's lobbied, and continues to lobby, to not pay enough taxes. The tax system is unbelievably unfair.
Those who "create value" often don't. The continuing enshittification of everything is removing value from customers, yet the CEOs who are forcing it on their customers are getting paid vast salaries. We all know that they're destroying value and that their organisations will eventually be replaced by ones that actually value customers, but they continue to be rewarded.
You have a very naive view of capitalism.
How much can be up for debate, but giving it all to corporates is going to be a replay of the run up to WW2
I like working, I like making things, I just don't care about having a "job" which I tie my identity too.
I know that must jobs are bullshit jobs and the fact many need to show up to them just to provide for their family is stupid. Maybe a 3 hour day would be more realistic.
Also, I have a Japanese Toto I imported from Japan, it's literally a robotic toilet that wipes my ass for me. Try again angry man.
You jest, but there's quite a lot of elderly, frail, incontinent boomers who are or soon will be in need of this service.
The Millennials zoomers and alphas seem to have little to no interest in doing the asswiping themselves.
Theres a reason why Jamie Dimon is saying people will be working 3 days per week in a generation because of AI.
And its why in capitalistic and technology forward societies the poor are generally better off than every generation prior.
...
> Suppose that at a given moment a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins as before. But the world does not need twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world everybody concerned in the manufacture of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work.
...
> If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day there would be enough for everybody, and no unemployment — assuming a certain very moderate amount of sensible organization. This idea shocks the well-to-do, because they are convinced that the poor would not know how to use so much leisure. In America men often work long hours even when they are already well-off; such men, naturally, are indignant at the idea of leisure for wage-earners except as the grim punishment of unemployment, in fact, they dislike leisure even for their sons.
Bertrand Russell was already talking about how the eight hours workday was a wasteful bullshit in 1932.
The well-to-do also need to have an underclass to distinguish themselves from, otherwise they become common. To them, becoming common is one of the worst things that could happen.
I have my reservations that THIS revolution will be the one that solves our problems. A jump in technology is simply a way for those with the means to get more out of those without. AI isn't an equalizer, compute seems like it'll be the new valuable resource and you can buy that with cash.
Right now the main thing AI is good at is quickly generating bullshit, so those are the jobs that are going to be first to be replaced.