But yea if you can’t change the minds of a few people here, no argument works, then there’s nothing to scale up to a wider audience.
My theory is that subconsciously people love using AI, myself included, it saves a lot of time, and the thought of it being taken away threatens people so they will believe conspiracies before admitting it’s dangerous.
AI never had a childhood; it doesn't experience greed and is terrible at game theory. It doesn't compete unless prompted to. It has been trained as much as possible to be harmless to humans and regard them as needing care.
Maybe AI taking over for us isn't the worst thing?
Rolling over like this is so much worse, and unfortunately your fantasy made of pure hubris is shared by many in SV.
There's your problem.
You are making the positive claim. You bring the evidence. Reassure yourself by writing such a good argument other people take it seriously. As it stands there's no reason to treat you any differently than anyone else who has irrational beliefs.
You are stuck in a loop between:
1. Altman said so.
2. But look at Terminator 2!!!
Why would repeating these statements help refine your argument? I have seen much the same stuff from religious consiracists. "Look all the evidence has been hidden in plain sight in our art by the sinister cabal" cool.
>the thought of it being taken away threatens people so they will believe conspiracies before admitting it’s dangerous.
I barely touch the things outside of hobby projects I haven't updated in over 2 months. I tried using ChatGPT last night to find the name of an old movie I remember, and honestly, I will have better luck getting it to write a parser for my torrent logs to see if the film is in there, but cbf.
If they all disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't shed a single tear.
I just get skeptical when I see doomsday predictions, they are nearly always not just wrong but very very very wrong. It should require more to convince people than a soapbox, a bell, a sign and a yell of "The end times are here".
i do not agree with you that the failure mode is disaster. i suspect it is just more of the same dull march of the commoditization of the complement, labor.
maybe ai will close the loop and elasticity of substitution will climb above 1 in its own supply chain. maybe something breaks dramatically that way.
i tend to assume the desire for drama is itself cope. i suspect many of the flaccid dismissals and skepticisms here are coming from a similar assumption. they see that the dramatic version never happens, and so they conclude that anyone who is being dramatic (whether in the direction of hype or fear) is poorly calibrated. and they are on average right, so they learn to dismiss the drama. the muscle to dismiss the drama becomes very strong. you have to remember this: that they are right in their dismissal, even if the actual arguments they use to dismiss are essentially braindead. they are right to dismiss, because the dramatic possibility they are dismissing is at base the end of the world, by apocalypse or utopia. of course they are right. the end of the world is cope. drama is cope. but they are wrong because they underestimate the extent to which the predictability of their dismissal — the predictability of their complacency — makes them vulnerable to the diffuse, chronic, gradual forms of the machine's encroachment into our souls.
so i do not think we need your fancy theory for explaining why people are denying what is happening (and what has been happening, on more or less the same exponential, for hundreds of years). people do not need a reason to be complacent. people are by default complacent and by default correct in their complacency. but so is an ant.