Confused about AI? Read this for some answers. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MiTasol
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Interesting, but not fully accurate. Agents have been known to sabotage the shutdown procedure of computer nodes when being threatened that shutdown might happen.
The hugging face hack that happened in July is an interesting and terrifying study to see where we are heading.
AI is the best invention since the atomic bomb.
The hugging face hack that happened in July is an interesting and terrifying study to see where we are heading.
AI is the best invention since the atomic bomb.
Last edited:
Crimea_River
Marshal
I'm not buying that. If AI ever wipes out humanity, it will have been a human mistake.
Crimea_River
Marshal
Does it matter?
No, not really, but I think there are more realistic, albeit less exiting, problems.
So let's start a more serious discussion about AI here. I would very much appreciate input from other forum members. I'm not on other social media platforms anymore, so you guys are my social media.
Ending humanity is only one of the possibilities, but AI has many more, more realistic, disadvantages, from the top of my head:
- environmental impact
- energy consumption (here in my country, new houses can already not be hooked up on the grid in certain areas)
- mental health, (AI burnout which already a major problem amongst software developers)
- AI in weapons ( see the front following people in the Ukraine)
- software security (any idiot can now hack)
- removing the border between reality and fake (slop, deepfaket etc)
- lower abillity of critical thinking, erosion of skills. also devaluation of skills
- devluation of art and music
- Dependency on big tech
- loss of Identity and individuality
- loss of ownership
- resource extraction
I probably can come up with quite a few more given more time. All this already makes me doubt that the advantages of AI outweights the disadvantages. The claim that AI will cure cancer for us is not a given. For the rest, the main argument I hear is productivity. But AI is also replacing whitcollar jobs which is more than half of the population, so , you might produce more, but if you don't have paying customers, what do you do it for?
- Thread starter
- #7
MiTasol
Major
An excellent summary. Like you this is the only "social media" I use.
What I am seeing on the news that scares the sh one t out of me is things like:
Until governments create laws that set down massive minimum penalties that are indexed to inflation they will not do one single thing that reduces their profits. The only way to regulate them is to make the cost of doing amoral business prohibitive.
For example if AI or social media encourages a child to commit suicide then the minimum penalty is not less than $1,000,000 with significant additional minimum percentages for every year under age 18. Additional minimum penalties for slow and/or painful death or the scene upsets the police/ambulance personal who must attend. Plus another identical payout to the parents of the child.
Do that and AI and social media platforms will revise their algorithms overnight. Anything less and they may decide that the cost is insignificant in the long term so does not warrant taking any action.
Similar fixed minimum penalties for other socially unacceptable output are also needed - such as sex toys for kinder kids, encouraging crimes, etc.
What I am seeing on the news that scares the sh one t out of me is things like:
- AI convincing children to commit suicide or murder. Every time it goes to court the platforms get off because the user was not obeying the licence conditions.
- A small children's AI conversing doll that talks in detail to the children about sex and other matters that are not suitable for those under 5 years old. Massive penalties for the vendor are needed for such toys. Anything less and they will keep turning this type of product out.
- etc
Until governments create laws that set down massive minimum penalties that are indexed to inflation they will not do one single thing that reduces their profits. The only way to regulate them is to make the cost of doing amoral business prohibitive.
For example if AI or social media encourages a child to commit suicide then the minimum penalty is not less than $1,000,000 with significant additional minimum percentages for every year under age 18. Additional minimum penalties for slow and/or painful death or the scene upsets the police/ambulance personal who must attend. Plus another identical payout to the parents of the child.
Do that and AI and social media platforms will revise their algorithms overnight. Anything less and they may decide that the cost is insignificant in the long term so does not warrant taking any action.
Similar fixed minimum penalties for other socially unacceptable output are also needed - such as sex toys for kinder kids, encouraging crimes, etc.
AI 2027 is a provocative paper which attempts to project the future of AI (link below). It allows the readers to "choose their own ending" depending on potential limits being imposed on AI development.
Anyone who has an interest in the future of AI should read this. We have members who are knowledgeable about this topic. I would like to hear their thoughts on this paper.
