All connection technology is a force for homogeneity. Television was the death of the regional accent, for example.
Through unlimited amusement, entertainment, and connection we are creating a sad, boring, lonely world.
Through unlimited amusement, entertainment, and connection we are creating a sad, boring, lonely world.
This homogenization was first pushed trough education and such but it remained among the more rural folk (in as far as rural exists in such a densely populated region) but now media and migration are rapidly killing it off.
Technology for touching grass.
That’s the real threat: reality authoring.
AI behavior on the other hand can cause under-informed users to do crazy things that no one would ever want. The form of the harm is less predictable, the magnitude isn't limited by anything except the user's ability and skepticism.
Imagine whatever US president you think is least competent talking to ChatGPT. If their conversation ventures into discussion of a Big Red Switch That Ends The World, it's going to eventually advise on all the reasons the button should be pushed, because that's exactly what would happen in the mountains of narrative material the LLM has been trained on.
Hopefully there is no end the world button and even the worst US president isn't going to push it because ChatGPT said it was a good idea. ... But you get the idea, and there absolutely are people leaving their families and doing all manner of crazy stuff because they accidentally prompted the AI into writing fiction starting them and the AI is advising them to live the life of a fictional character.
I think AI doomers have it all wrong, AI risk to the extent it exists isn't from any kind of super-intelligence, it's significantly from super-insanity. The AI doesn't need any kind of super-human persuasion, turns out vastly _sub_-human persuasion is more than enough for many.
Wealthy people abusing a new communications channel to influence the public isn't a new risk, it's a risk as old as time. It's not irrelevant, by any means, but we do have a long history of dealing with it.
Totally agree. We have a level of technology today that is enough to ruin the world. We don’t need to look any further for the threat to our souls.
One could say the same of the printing press.
Who says that the president isn't already a chatbot, himself? [1] Think about this article.
Enjoy.
[0] https://people.com/man-proposed-to-his-ai-chatbot-girlfriend...
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/29/the-hallucinating-chatgp...
They don't really think that way.
See Trump defunding medical research. Capitalists need medical care too, but they think quarterly.
You're right about the defunding of research - it's loudly proclaimed as a way to save money.
You're also right that the long term effects would indeed cost a lot more but I would add only if the current social contract is kept in place. As I see it, the chainsaw brandishing is really aimed at the latter, the former is just for show.
Redefining the social contract appears to be the endgame here, in that case, the thinking goes much further than quarterly.
So quality of care will decrease (to a much lesser extent) for rich people as well.
Do you think they accounted for that? I doubt it.
If you watch the video of Dan Bongino talking about power you'll get the vibes.
They do, alright. I mean they do live in their world, we also live in their world.
>They might cause harm, sure, but that harm generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude.
"Harm of finite magnitude" extends up to the boundaries of infinity. No mortal can cause infinite harm, so the limitation you offer... just isn't.
> Wealthy people abusing a new communications channel to influence the public isn't a new risk, it's a risk as old as time. It's not irrelevant, by any means, but we do have a long history of dealing with it.
The "long history of dealing with" media monopolization is a long history of defeats of the common man - press, radio, tv, internet - were all subjugated by monopolistic interests. And you think that's somehow good for the subjugated?
> AI behavior on the other hand can cause under-informed users to do crazy things that no one would ever want. The form of the harm is less predictable, the magnitude isn't limited by anything except the user's ability and skepticism.
Ah, that was it, the little people are way too dangerous and should be put in shackles for their own good. The big bosses, on the other hand, can only do harm that "generally takes predictable form and is of finite magnitude". That's very soothing and all but unfortunately, both history and logic lead to the exact opposite conclusion.
I'm still amused by the bold claims you make - according to you, people of unlimited power and means can only do harm of finite magnitude, while little people of no power and no means are very scary and unpredictable indeed... That could only be the worldview of the former imposed on the latter.