Hacker News Reader

Comment by latexr | Hacker News Reader

We’re discussing a literal war, with all the death and destruction that entails, and your claim is “the bigger harm” is not wasting more money on a power hungry subpar parrot that is accelerating the dissemination of disinformation and making it harder to fight climate change with its energy consumption.

We’re all doomed. Anyone who believes AI will kill us is delusional, humans are greedy and stupid enough that we’ll do it ourselves.

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

View on HN

Bigger harm than "20% of your economy is busy throwing ordnance at someone else". That comment was focusing on the economy, not on the deaths.

Regarding AI, it could lead to solutions to the problems we've been creating through the industrialization.

Russia is no stranger to the relationship between the economy and death. Both wars and economic mismanagement have led to famine in Russia. As for AI, we have no proof that it will work out for the benefit of humanity. Even if we did have such proof, it would also depend upon people heeding its advice.

“It’s in your nature to destroy yourselves.” - T-800, 1995

> a power hungry subpar parrot

You may yet live to be bitten in the gluteus maximus by said parrot.

If that happens it will not be because it became sentient and decided to cause me harm, but because some developer somewhere decided it was a good idea to tab-tab-tab their code completion without fully understanding the solution and the resulting security hole caused the system to be exploited.

no, it'll be because it's aligned with rich people's interests. robot police holding back the unwashed masses is in our near future.

Same difference. The point is that it won’t be the AI’s choice, it will be caused by human misuse of it, whether by incompetence or malice.

you'll still be bitten by the parrot.

Whatever. The point was clear in the first message; if you refuse to understand the idea even after multiple explanations, that’s your prerogative. Your nitpick is unproductive and boring and doesn’t advance the conversation either way, it’s just contrarian for the sake of contrarianism. I have no desire to fuel a conversation whose replies amounts to nothing more than “no, you”.

that makes sense, thank you for explaining. you win.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com