zlacker

I already kind of replied to this rebuttal in advance in my first comment that you replied to. But I’ll refute it again a second way. Textile machinery impacted a very specific sector of work. We’re talking here about an advancement in technology threatening to substitute the creativity of humans one day. With textile machinery, other technological advancements eventually created new jobs which helped to displace the jobs that were lost. Will we manage to displace all of the creative roles we may lose to artificial intelligence at the same rate that the human workers are becoming obsolete? Time will tell. You seem very confident we will, and I wish I shared that confidence. But I’ll grant that I consider it’s possible we succeed in this. I find it wild that other people don’t consider it’s possible we fail though. All I’m saying is that we need to be mindful of it, mindful enough to notice it if it happens, as I’d argue is happening with ScarJo here, and the greater voice acting industry. Because in my opinion the overconfidence displayed to the contrary in this thread is exactly how I expect most of humanity will be blindsided by it happening instead.

>>startt+(OP)
The US cannot suppress AI. There's a lot of other countries which would love to pick up the AI flag if we drop it, and then they'll bury us.

I've used AI in my programming work. After you get used to it, you see its limitations. It's not that clever, it's mostly mush. It's better than stackoverflow, though :-/

I've seen AI written articles, and they're pretty much drivel. Of course, most articles are drivel anyway, but the AI ones seem to have a peculiar drivelness about them that I recognize but cannot really describe.

I view it as simply removing some of the drudgery of my work, just like textile machines removed much of the drudgery of making cloth.

What I fear about AI is not their economic uses, but their use in warfare. Do you want a terminator drone hunting you? I sure don't.

>>Walter+J7
In order by paragraph:

Sure. This doesn’t seem like a direct response to anything I said, but it’s a valid point to why our government will be too slow to react in the situation I’m describing.

I’ve used it too. I think you’re still thinking on a much shorter timespan than I’m talking about. This is going to continue to advance. And I purposefully used the word “substitute” to describe its exact level of capability to replace human creativity.

Sure, same response as above.

Sure, same response as above.

Sure, that’s a much more reasonable short term fear for AI usage.

>>Walter+J7
> What I fear about AI is not their economic uses, but their use in warfare.

AI has been used in warfare in the form of computer vision for like 20 years now. That's the scariest application of AI you will ever have to worry about; putting ChatGPT in a GBU-12 isn't going to make it any more dangeorus.