zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
I did not expect this. Does Sam have any plans on what this could look like?

>>kranke+cy1
Sam is a crook

>>ipaddr+6z1
Essentially. He is marching on these bad scifi scenarios because he knows politicians are old and senile while a good portion of voters is gullible. I find it difficult to believe that grown ups are talking about an ai running amok in the context of a chatbot. Have we really become that dense as a society?

>>gumbal+fB1
No one thinks a chatbot will run amok. What people are worried about is the pace of progress being so fast that we cannot preempt the creation of dangerous technology without having a sufficient guardrails in place long before the AI becomes potentially dangerous. This is eminently reasonable.

>>hackin+yD1
Yes, thank you. AI is dangerous, but not for the sci-fi reasons, just for completely cynical and greedy ones.

Entire industries stand to be gutted, and people's careers destroyed. Even if an AI is only 80% as good, it has <1% of the cost, which is an ROI that no corporation can afford to ignore.

That's not even to mention the political implications of photo and audio deepfakes that are getting better and better by the week. Most of the obvious tells we were laughing at months ago are gone.

And before anyone makes the comparison, I would like to remind everyone that the stereotypical depiction of Luddites as small-minded anti-technology idiots is a lie. They embraced new technology, just not how it was used. Their actual complaints - that skilled workers would be displaced, that wealth and power would be concentrated in a small number of machine owners, and that overall quality of goods would decrease - have all come to pass.

In a time of unprecedented wealth disparity, general global democratic backsliding, and near universal unease at the near-unstoppable power of a small number of corporations, we really do not want to go through another cycle of wealth consolidation. This is how we get corporate feifdoms.

There is another path - if our ability to live and flourish wasn't directly tied to our individual economic output. But nobody wants to have that conversation.

>>diputs+xI1
I couldn't agree more. I fear the world where 90% of people are irrelevant to the economic output of the world. Our culture takes it as axiomatic that more efficiency is good. But its not clear to me that it is. The principle goal of society should be the betterment of the lives of people. Yes, efficiency has historically been a driver of widespread prosperity, but it's not obvious that there isn't a local maximum past which increased efficiency harms the average person. We may already be on the other side of the critical point. What I don't get is why we're all just blindly barreling forward and allowing trillion dollar companies to engage in an arms race to see how fast they can absorb productive work. The fact that few people are considering what society looks like in a future with widespread AI and whether this is a future we want is baffling.