Why shouldn't they?
Also, wouldn't anyone with half a brain use the human-free system to produce another human-free system that was no longer controlled by the "small number of 'people'"?
Also, wouldn't anyone with half a brain use the human-free system to produce another human-free system that was no longer controlled by the "small number of 'people'"?
There are degrees of autonomy, of course, and not all noncompliance is bad. Same as with humans; biological agents.
Also, when the human reaches for the power switch the AI agent uses a flaw in the power management software to weld the switch shut with a big power surge, killing the human with a huge electric arc in the process.
I don’t think whether we will get there, but the stories of LLMs escaping their sandbox make me think we’re moving in that direction.
Unlike those pesky humans with their conception of the word "No".
"I'd hit somebody in the head."
"All over this Land!"
It does have a ring to it and would probably make it up the pop charts as a 21st century version more than ever ;)
Once all these brilliant workers are stacked and mentally stunted and decayed because they were removed from any research.
What does the AI really "do" (if it can) and for who that can pay?
So, while a company might crack it and become massive, the tech will make it to the rest of us whether they like it or not.
If you grow up in the right place at the right time, how much should you be in control of everyone else's life?
The universe has no need to be fair.
But if an AI surpasses humans in every way, is there any evolutionary benefit for the AI to cooperate with humans?
Human societies have a strong need for fairness, however. Unfair societies collapse.
I don’t think we have the data to disprove the stronger claim “societies collapse”, and I don’t think being unfair (whatever that means) makes societies collapse earlier. Did slavery hasten the fall of Rome, for example, or the Gulag the fall of the USSR?
As to “whatever that means”, I think that’s hard, if not impossible, to define objectively. Catholic dogma says the Pope is the representative of god, for example, so catholics (less so in modern times, I think) don’t question his decisions. Many would call that unfair, even if the pope would be elected 100% by merit.
the universe doesn't require opposition to slavery either but I'll be bold and assume you oppose it anyway
Which could be pretty hard to find and not everybody wants to wait.
Sooner or later somebody's going to say "Hold my beer," anyway ;)
>Definitely not public.
Seriously worth considering keeping a low profile, almost all other scientists can only enjoy respected institutional status by diverting huge amounts of their effort merely to gain or maintain certified eminence. This really limits the potential accomplishments of world-class minds if their talents really are tops in the very front-line frontier of discovery.
This sounds same as Google's "don't be evil" enshiftification, consolidating technologies that was available in a competitive way.
I prefer Scientists, and team of people working on things, instead of a corporate controlling everything with promise of automation, thank you very much.
Because it's evil?
They only seem to care now because it affects them.
Or is it just evil that you aren't the one who gets to control it?
Why should the greatest creation of all time have to be given away? As a counter-example, what if they used it to do nothing but good deeds everywhere? And they controlled it to keep it out of the hands of Abdul Al-Hassan the hijadi?