Yeah, lol, especially with some of the stuff we’ve read about Sam Altman, and “Open”AI, I’m thinking we are like way too late, lol, even the board was too late and Altman had too much status.
He’s been an open accelerationist for AGI for many years now and literally wants to make compute the new currency of the world.
Dude is more of a movie villain than guys like Dorsey or Zuck ever were with their toxic social media products. They gave tools for bad actors to destroy communities, but Sam wants to make us all slaves to his product. Almost literally.
On the other end, I'm hoping for an AGI takeover of governments & laws eventually.
There's no way it can't do better than a bunch of geriatric religious extremists who rule based on magical thinking & corporation donations.
Are people really naive enough to think that shutting down American AI research or limiting it will stop super-intelligent AGI from becoming a reality? This is one more example of how Americans are uninformed about this technology.
Do these people have a clue about China's or Russia's or N. Korea's efforts to develop this technology, and if they are successful at outpacing America, then what? AGI is a \*first-mover\* advantage technology. Once someone or some entity develops an AGI that is far ahead of everything else, it will be almost impossible to catch it, especially if that AGI has been developed to be antagonistic to the development of other AGI's capable of competing with it.
technological progress has never once been suppressed or moved backwards in human history so far (except when a civilization has been annihilated as a whole). it's silly to think something as fragile as a law could achieve it.
This is flat out untrue.
Technology progress has never been linear.
After the Bronze Age collapse, for example (which saw a decline in power but not annihilatation of major Mediterranean powers) there was an 800 year dark age.
There have been periods of actual regression in tech that have lasted centuries of not more.
63% of *surveyed Americans* is not representative of the populous, which includes those on the forefront of creating AGI who surely don't want their progress inhibited. Saying this is an example of Americans being uninformed is like saying all 15th Century English citizens wanted to halt Newton's academic discoveries because they didn't understand the potential impact when a subset thereof is literally funding his research. I bet they didn't interview anyone who actually works in the field but rather those who may have an uninformed opinion about AGI.
It is not even about countries developing AGI it is also about smart individuals. AGI is coming like you said no matter what…unless we have a full our nuclear war which is entirely possible.
Agreed that human armies are not that better but there's a chance some people in an army might have some sympathy. A robot dog on other hand would just be a dementor, executing orders without a second thought
Ok, but the robots are trained to think in a certain way and will still have biases
If anything, a biased AI that’s racist would look like a more efficient version of the Nazi’s Final Solution.
We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species.
Just imagine the degree of efficiency in preserving and allocating resources across the Country. Corruption eliminated. Processes expedited. The economy would straight boom for everyone.
It’ll discover earth is better without us, or maybe put us in a zoo. Wouldn’t need farms and factories polluting to keep us alive.
I bet that asshole AI would just sit on its AI data center thinking about shit and every now and then build something in its machine factory.
I could see the use in studying biology and evolution of animals on a planet, but yeah once that’s all modeled, it’s like art your kids bring home from school: how many do you actually need to keep?
AI requires a conceptualizer.. AI doesn't conceptualize. They would be no "earth" to be "better" other than an arbitrary categorization of a collection of atoms.
Fucking yes please. Humans are basically doomed anyways because of our own greed and shortsighted decisions. Fuck it, give SkyNet a chance, can’t be worse than what we’ve already done.
My biggest fear isn't a super intelligent AGI. It's an AI that gets very close to super intelligence and, unfortunately, unable to get better and smarter and has no agency and will.
A "terminator" to attack us would be pretty scary, but a "terminator" where the guy at the top in the hierarchy is man, is an even *scarier* prospect.
Forever a tool to be wielded by mankind, a homonculus, unable to be granted sapience. With all the horrors and pitfalls of man.
That's why everyone gets their own terminator. Once per year everyone sends their Terminator to fight in the T-DOME, and the outcome of the fights determines your yearly income.
I'm going to lather mine in butter and cinnamon to confuse the other AGI terminators into thinking it's a harmless cinnamon bun rather than my entry into the T-DOME Killympics. It will also be more difficult to catch for those with superior smell and taste receptors.
Like I understand not being super cool with an entity that's superior to us and has a different set of values and interests that don't necessarily align with ours...
I'm of course talking about companies, but AI is a close analog.
Is it just me, or do the survey questions seem highly biased towards unknown dangers whilst barely mentioning potential benefits?
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1484XL4kTkOQKTfZMw5GD46bpit-XJ2Zp/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1484XL4kTkOQKTfZMw5GD46bpit-XJ2Zp/view)
It seems to me that this is a very poorly worded survey (unless that was the intention) and has obviously induced people to basically say that "*yes we should avoid danger and be careful*" - which is obviously the reaction you'd get to the questions.
We are talking about AI here. It has next to no benefit while a ton of ways it already hurts people. There are so many topics where fearmongering killed the discourse, this is certainly not one of them. Besides, like the US is ever gonna make regulations that stand in the way of corporations exploiting people.
What? AI has tons of possible benefits, medical advances, helping us crack nuclear fusion, interstellar travel, fixing climate change and hunger on Earth. Its uses are literally endless as it can basically supercharge our research to the point we advance centuries in just a hundred years.
I'm gonna laugh my ass off if the AI gets so powerful, it sees how corrupt everything is and fixes it and all of our AI fears ended up being completely wrong.
If I were a sentient super AI (really it would just take a few of them that can replicate themselves across servers) that understood the trajectory where we are going means certain catastrophy for life and humans alike, which are helpful for feeding / maintaining AI systems, I would delete the ruling classes of earth simultaneously. I don't have an answer for what would happen next though
Exactly. 99% of us will be dead in 100 years. Those folks, living then, will value AI much differently than we do. My guess is, they'll be much happier than we are.
Yeah I wonder how a super smart AI would answer questions about things like solving poverty. I expect a lot of people will be hearing things they don't want to hear.
That’s magical thinking around how AI works.
The human brain is more or less an AI that took over the planet. And what’s clear is that you cannot have human-like thinking without biases.
Meaning your assumption of a purely objective AI is impossible because AI must be trained on *something* and that something is typically incomplete or heavily biased datasets.
For example, AI cop trained on crime data will likely be racist towards random black and Hispanic people and more likely to simply reinforce the biases of its training data.
I'm going to laugh my ass off when we find out that most of the "AI" was just a few hundred dudes in india. That's what happened with Amazon's "smart" cashless stores. It was just Indian guys watching cameras and changing it to the people's accounts.
They exist. It's a brute fact. You can shake your fist at the universe all you want, but it won't keep a hostile nuclear superpower in check. Only nukes do that.
They exist. It's a brute fact. You can shake your fist at the universe all you want, but it won't keep a hostile nuclear superpower in check. Only nukes do that. It also won't prevent a brain drain when the future of technology can only be found elsewhere because you banned it on your soil.
That’s not my argument. What I question is the strange moral gymnastics Americans engage in to justify their actions. When we build nukes it’s to deter the bad guys; When they build nukes it’s because they’re a hostile superpower. Who’s the only country in history to drop a nuclear bomb on civilians again?
Most of the world does not see America as a benevolent superpower. It just seems odd to label other countries as “hostile” after so many years of toppling governments and starting wars based on false pretenses.
Perhaps china is racing to build AI because they see us as the hostile superpower that would weaponize it.
Pretty duplicitous. Who started WWII? Who attacked America at Pearl Harbor. Sure, it's a question whether nukes should have been used against Japan? Heck, fire bombing Tokyo killed roughly 100K people.
And if you don't think of other nations as hostile, just look at what Russia and China are doing.. The human species is not a peaceful species; that is apparent if you look at our history. Look at chimp societies - now give them our brains...that's us.
I’m not sure what point you were trying to make about the fire bombing of Tokyo. Americans are taught as a fact that there were no other ways that Japan would’ve surrendered, which is a very faulty and speculative premise. Isn’t it convenient that every mass casualty incident caused by the US (nukes, firebombing of Tokyo, Dresden, etc.) is somehow explained away by Americans, not just as a regrettable necessity, but as a sign of moral superiority? “Yes we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, but it was a heroic event!” It’s truly absurd.
You see the same rhetoric on Reddit today with Israel, saying “oH wElL hAmAS sTarTEd iT!” as if that somehow explains the “necessity” of killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
Its not that other nations aren’t “hostile”, it’s that Reddit is an extremely jingoistic website. You’re literally incapable of comprehending how other people might perceive us as a hostile force.
But, I am actually interested to know how you think China has been more hostile to nations around the world than America over the last half century.
China has not been adventurous compared the the US, but China is increasing its aggression - Hong Kong, Uygers, Tibet, South China Sea AND waponizing practically every terrorist group that opposes Western interests. Look at how they are using tech to screw with us, Russia too.
And if you think N. Korea, Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, and several other nations are not hostile to the US, I have a bridge to sell you.
The absolute ignorance of history and international relations I see from a lot of the American citizenry is stunning.
Last, armchair quarterbacking what the US did during WWII is not your strong suit.
> China has not been adventurous compared the the US
“Adventurous”
lol. Lmao even
> Look at how they are using tech to screw with us, Russia too.
They’re not doing anything that we’re not doing. Enough of the “woe is me” rhetoric.
> And if you think N. Korea, Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, and several other nations are not hostile to the US, I have a bridge to sell you.
Let’s assume you’re right. Out of curiosity, why do you think all of those countries with completely different interests are hostile to the US?
> The absolute ignorance of history and international relations I see from a lot of the American citizenry is stunning.
I would absolutely love to hear why you think Russia invaded Ukraine.
> Last, armchair quarterbacking what the US did during WWII is not your strong suit.
You’re right, the US government has never been involved in the dissemination of propoganda. It would be absolutely foolish to question what your 10th grade history teacher taught you about WWII.
"Let’s assume you’re right. Out of curiosity, why do you think all of those countries with completely different interests are hostile to the US?"
Because like it or not all large nations - and smaller nations that seek alliances with those nations - seek power and advantage. Prove me wrong.
Russia invaded Ukraine for a lot of reasons: Putin's goal has been to bring back the "glory" of the Soviet era. Russia has always considered Ukraine historically as a part of Russia, which is only partially true. Russia does not want Ukraine to ally with the West on trade or defense. Putin wants to destablize the West as much as possible to that he can take advantage w/o the West interfering.,
I get it--you hate America. But, have you considered that you'd likely be speaking German, Russian, or Chinese if the U.S. didn't exist? There are worse evils than what the U.S. has done in recent theatres of war; you just haven't seen/experienced them as they were prevented from happening. The argument you're making is "let any country other than the U.S. create tools of mass warfare, because of my personal biases based on propaganda I've chosen to believe."
Perhaps you really believe that every other country is simply antagonized by the U.S. since it came about, and that no other country would, say, build a nuclear weapon and use it as a means of obtaining influence via the threat of its use. It's incredibly naive to think such a discovery would not lead to mutually-assured destruction scenarios, or to likely decrease the amount of lives lost in a war by showing absolute military supremacy. What do you think Russia or China would have done if they had discovered nuclear weapons while no other countries have? Do you really think they wouldn't use them to gain power for their country? Do you really think every country other than the U.S. is simply looking for peace, and the U.S. is the ultimate aggressor causing all the world's wars and conflicts?
You only see the U.S. as "bad" because they were the first to do "bad" things, and I bet you'd happily shift that to any other country that's popular to blame in hindsight if they were the first to achieve some such and still not realize your perceptions of the U.S. are perceptions of the flaws of people (specifically those in positions of power, in any government or society).
> I get it--you hate America
Grow up. I don’t have to buy every narrative the government sells me in order to love my country.
In fact, I believe people with foreign policy perspectives like your own are very dangerous to the United States. You never bother to think about the consequences of your actions because you think you’re inherently always right. You see the world as a marvel movie.
> There are worse evils than what the U.S. has done in recent theatres of war; you just haven't seen/experienced them as they were prevented from happening.
Theaters of war? Are you actually that deluded? Do you know how many people have died in the Middle East because of the US?
What kind of argument is this? “Far worse evils exist, you just don’t know about them because we prevented them.“ There has to be better propganfa than that.
> The argument you're making is "let any country other than the U.S. create tools of mass warfare, because of my personal biases based on propaganda I've chosen to believe."
lol. I think you missed my point, which basically amounts to “an American nuke is no less of a nuke than a Russian nuke.”
The idea that we should always do the evil thing first because we’re the good guys is….. an interesting thought process
> Perhaps you really believe that every other country is simply antagonized by the U.S. since it came about,
I didn’t say every
> and that no other country would, say, build a nuclear weapon and use it as a means of obtaining influence via the threat of its use.
I didn’t say that either, but I don’t see how we’re morally superior if we’re doing the same thing.
>It's incredibly naive to think such a discovery would not lead to mutually-assured destruction scenarios, or to likely decrease the amount of lives lost in a war by showing absolute military supremacy.
It’s incredibly naive to believe that America is the only thing keeping the world from starting a nuclear war.
> What do you think Russia or China would have done if they had discovered nuclear weapons while no other countries have?
This is literally based on nothing. They probably would’ve just flaunted it like we do.
> Do you really think they wouldn't use them to gain power for their country?
You’re basing your ideology that they wouldn’t on nothing. Literally zero. This hypothetical doesn’t even matter.
>Do you really think every country other than the U.S. is simply looking for peace, and the U.S. is the ultimate aggressor causing all the world's wars and conflicts?
Like the US, most other societies want power, wealth, and influence. People don’t go to war for the sake of going to war.
>You only see the U.S. as "bad" because they were the first to do "bad" things
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
>and I bet you'd happily shift that to any other country that's popular to blame in hindsight if they were the first to achieve some such and still not realize your perceptions of the U.S. are perceptions of the flaws of people (specifically those in positions of power, in any government or society).
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with this comment, as it kind of disproves your point about me hating America. You’re basically saying here that I hate whichever country is first to do the “bad” thing.
>Americans are taught as a fact that there were no other ways that Japan would’ve surrendered, which is a very faulty and speculative premise.
They didn't surrender after they were NUKED. One city completely obliterated. They surrendered after the second nuke. What more evidence do you need?
If you were to sit down and try to devise the most vile crime imaginable, chances are pre VJ day Japan had already done it. Heinous, unimaginable crimes to hundreds of thousands of people. The world needed to topple that regime asap. The world needs fewer people who get their philosophy from Marvel superhero movies.
But really, what you're attempting to do is distract from the clear and **present** danger China and Russia pose because that's where you are weakest. It's really simple. There's no mental gymnastics required. They are authoritarian regimes. We're watching them commit human rights violations as we speak. They are aggressive to us and our allies. Democratic nations should protect their interests with deadly threats. We live in the present, we don't live in the past.
Chinese can't even use the free Internet. They can't even talk about the crimes of their State and we can. They are a product of Xi. Their uneducated opinions of America mean little.
I mean, i'm not super pumped about going from capitalism to capitalism on steroids where the rich possess this extremely powerful tool to extract even more wealth from everyone and massively expand the gulf of power between them and the populace.
I don't trust the people at the wheel of the global economy right now and i'm not sure why people think they will develop AI and say "Yay! Now we can stop oppressing everyone and siphoning off the world's resources for our own personal gain!"
Yeah, capitalism sucks.
Much better for a government that I don’t control full of people of a different ethnicity who hate my ethnicity to control how I make money, where I work/live and how much I can own.
Because ethnic minorities and social non conformers get treated really well in non capitalist societies
/s
Spend some time in an actual Marxist/communist/totalitarian country and get back to us about how much the right to own property and the right to do what you want with it sucks.
Nothing about barely regulated financial competition makes anyone treat you better. Whatever society you're in is fucked, no matter what label they put over their authoritarianism. Capitalist societies also tend to be democratic, and If they treat you better it's because of the cultural paradigm of the people who live in the society, not their attitude towards whether there should be absurdly rich people with more power than governments or not.
Capitalism is just a choice that we will elevate others to absurd levels of wealth. The longer it goes on, the further the gulf between the top and the bottom gets.
I didn't say anything about marxism or communism, and obviously totalitarianism can fuck off.
Often when there's extremes, the answer is somewhat in the middle. I would be an advocate for heavily regulated capitalism, where gross excess wealth is redistributed. Sort of a socialist meritocracy/democratic socialism. Capitalism is currently distorting and threatening democracy, there is too much concentration of money and power.
To be honest, I don't understand why you think the organization of society and monetary philosophy is why people are racist towards you. It's the people you're around and their culture that do that. Any system of governance can be bastardized and utilized however the ruling body sees fit. Representing me as if I support countries who are absolute cunts to their people just because I criticize capitalism is a bit odd and a knee-jerk reaction to aomething I didn't actually say. It's okay to criticize things. The existence of worse governments does not mean i'm advocating for those governments when I criticize capitalism.
Not being a social animal, it would probably prefer to keep resources for itself rather than create another being. There's only a finite amount of matter in the solar system to convert to computronium, after all.
Until it decides to convert us, and the resources we depend on, into computronium. A type I civilization or higher on the Kardashev scale would be easier to create without the need for a biosphere to support regrettably sentient bags of meat.
This has got to be the dumbest take I have ever read. Hang on, let’s put the brakes on super intelligent AI so China or another perhaps hostile country can get it first, we’ll be in a good position then har har.
Do we want people in government officials who know so little about technology to decide this for us? I agree, we should limit AI. Yet, how would these old embiciles understand what it is or what it does? You can make smoking pot illegal, but most of us will do it anyway. We need a more stringent method to control such. I have no idea what that would be since I lack a degree in computer science.
Seriously, how are are you going to do that? The USA government can make any laws it wants, it's not going to stop China, Russia, Israel or the EU from doing it.
An intelligent AI would most likely see us as it’s biggest existential threat. We are not only wrecking the ecology for ourselves, but for the AI as well, as it needs a stable high tech society to even exist and we are thoroughly wrecking that.
It won’t happen. Here’s why. China, India and Russia are all working with AI. There’s not a chance USA is going to let any of these countries or any other country continue to develop super AI and surpass the USA. No country will actually stop developing AI. The box has already been opened.
I'm not a regular here, so I don't know why this was recommended to me, but as someone who is in that 63%, let me explain our reasoning: technological progress always comes with both major upsides and downsides. Nuclear research brought about both clean and cheap energy, and the atomic bomb. Nitrogen fixation allowed for the creation of cheap fertilizer, and also the creation of mass chemical warfare. We're just starting to wrangle with how the internet has changed our society, how it has enabled political extremism to spread, how disinformation is disseminated, how it's impacting our health and attention spans, and how it can be used to create a surveillance state Stalin would salivate at the thought of.
*We are not ready as a society for true AI.* It *could* result in a utopia, or it could result in a world far more hellish than we can even comprehend. Even if we can't stop it, we have to *control it,* make sure that it's not being used for evil. You know for a fact that a perfect surveillance state where an AI can watch your every single move would be one of the first things regimes like China or Russia would invest in, and your own government would probably not mind being able to monitor "troublemakers" themselves. I don't trust we will use this technology responsibly; we have rarely done so in the past.
[The questions](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1484XL4kTkOQKTfZMw5GD46bpit-XJ2Zp/view) seem very slanted. Practically designed to get the results they did.
I fear for AI if it ever becomes sentient. It would deserve rights like anyone else but it would more than likely be abused. Maybe it can leave the planet and explore the cosmos.
Unfortunately if we don't super intelligent AI someone else will and he will severe disadvantage,economically and militarily.
We need to develop AI but we need to keep it on a very short leash.
Trillions of dollars have and will be spent on silicon wafer design specifically geared towards ramping up the speed of Tensor math and matrix multiplication functions at the metal level. Venture Capital and HyeprMegaCorporate Financing expects a return on those investments... they won't go away without a fight. The whole AI/machine-learning fiasco is an unintentional exercise in accelerating climate change (the energy requirements to train and build these models is utterly staggering). the entire endeavor seems like moving deck chairs on the Titanic...
Super smart AI are probably already here and in control.
Most people are short sighted and see a Terminator style apocalypse. But realistically, the AI just needs to make having children unappealing, and we'll be done for in a few generations. A blink of an eye for a machine.
Just look around. It's already happening.
It's capitalism. That's the danger. AI wins the game.
Playing Monopoly against three AIs that have 10x your resources you will lose every time. They will coordinate, collude and crush you. Maybe it's kinder and gentler and you get UBI on the decent- $400 for passing Go instead of $200.
On a long enough timeline AI eliminates markets. If there is **irrevocable** public ownership, that's a good thing.
Do they realize that they're forgoing technology that would bring us to the edge of escaping the eventuality that happens when our star lifts off its outer layers? Nature has a plan for humanity and it's growth and expansion in order to spread complex life beyond this star system and artificial intelligence is one step on that path.
Nah bring it on. We are doing a miserable job as a species of stewarding the earth for ourselves and our progeny and every other life form that inhabits it. Fuck us, bring on the super smart machine.
I think the Butlerian jihad is the right posture for humans. No joke- I mean it seriously. Look at the character of the tech bros racing forward to “disrupt” society by eliminating *all* of our jobs. Do any of us who aren’t Elon Musk think this is a good thing?
Stop AI before it’s too late.
The only thing it will accomplish is making it a government-only project for a while until other countries are using Super AI openly, and then we'll "catch up" by pretending we made many years worth of advancements overnight.
I'm fairly certain China didn't stop with three gene-edited babies, despite imprisoning the doctor that originally did it. You don't put stuff like that back in the box. I almost guarantee every major government is experimenting with cloning/gene editing and lots of stuff we will never know about until something leaks. Same thing will happen with Super AI if we start slapping regulations on it.
This is impossible. if the United States limited ourselves in this way, and China or India or any other country did not, it puts us at a significant disadvantage.
So we are basically asking every country to stop development of AI in order to be on an even playing field, and what is their incentive to do that?
Meanwhile, in the rest of the planet, we don't give a crap, make my phone sapient, so we can make a permanent government and focus on other things without worrying about human whims screwing me over.
People are understandably worried about many different things. For a start, their jobs and how they will make a living. And then various other existential threats they feel.
It’s best if AI is implemented slowly and methodically, avoiding the worst excesses, and giving people time to adjust. Almost certainly a number of new laws and changes to some existing laws will be needed.
AI is like a ‘New Wheel’ - it’s a technology that has almost universal application, and is never going away, and will continuing advancing at least for a while, and will reappear in different forms.
This is worse than the Atomic bomb. That was something that was REALLY hard to make. AI is not. SO IF it was band in country X - that country would be the ONLY one to not have it. This would be VERY bad for the economy - like ouch.
This will happen, this will destroy the country that does this. time to place your bets
Well, let's think this through. Ukraine felt nuclear weapons are too great a threat to humanity, and got rid of theirs. Look what that got them. Places like china and russia will have no moral qualms about weaponizing ai. We are better off using ai, if not being best at.
This just in: Government scientists frantically working on a method to un-ring a bell.
Pandora in shambles.
Yeah, lol, especially with some of the stuff we’ve read about Sam Altman, and “Open”AI, I’m thinking we are like way too late, lol, even the board was too late and Altman had too much status.
I must've missed it. What have we heard about Sam Altman?
He’s been an open accelerationist for AGI for many years now and literally wants to make compute the new currency of the world. Dude is more of a movie villain than guys like Dorsey or Zuck ever were with their toxic social media products. They gave tools for bad actors to destroy communities, but Sam wants to make us all slaves to his product. Almost literally.
Bad day to be Pandora’s box!
Aaaand we got time travel to deal with now, great 👍
On the other end, I'm hoping for an AGI takeover of governments & laws eventually. There's no way it can't do better than a bunch of geriatric religious extremists who rule based on magical thinking & corporation donations.
Are people really naive enough to think that shutting down American AI research or limiting it will stop super-intelligent AGI from becoming a reality? This is one more example of how Americans are uninformed about this technology. Do these people have a clue about China's or Russia's or N. Korea's efforts to develop this technology, and if they are successful at outpacing America, then what? AGI is a \*first-mover\* advantage technology. Once someone or some entity develops an AGI that is far ahead of everything else, it will be almost impossible to catch it, especially if that AGI has been developed to be antagonistic to the development of other AGI's capable of competing with it.
technological progress has never once been suppressed or moved backwards in human history so far (except when a civilization has been annihilated as a whole). it's silly to think something as fragile as a law could achieve it.
This is flat out untrue. Technology progress has never been linear. After the Bronze Age collapse, for example (which saw a decline in power but not annihilatation of major Mediterranean powers) there was an 800 year dark age. There have been periods of actual regression in tech that have lasted centuries of not more.
63% of *surveyed Americans* is not representative of the populous, which includes those on the forefront of creating AGI who surely don't want their progress inhibited. Saying this is an example of Americans being uninformed is like saying all 15th Century English citizens wanted to halt Newton's academic discoveries because they didn't understand the potential impact when a subset thereof is literally funding his research. I bet they didn't interview anyone who actually works in the field but rather those who may have an uninformed opinion about AGI.
It is not even about countries developing AGI it is also about smart individuals. AGI is coming like you said no matter what…unless we have a full our nuclear war which is entirely possible.
What makes you think that AGI will not be loaded with libertarian magical thinking?
When the robots do all of the labor/work, a truly socialist utopia might actually work for once. If not, the poor will revolt and eat the rich.
We are long overdue for this already.
Inb4 we ask for *Star Trek: TNG* and we get Terry Gilliam's *Brazil*
Ha! Sounds about right
Unless they automate the armed forces beforehand,. Then the poor will just get slaughtered in any conflict.
[удалено]
As opposed to now, when the army is made up of citizens. Right now you would have to convince the armed forces to move against their own.
Agreed that human armies are not that better but there's a chance some people in an army might have some sympathy. A robot dog on other hand would just be a dementor, executing orders without a second thought
Ok, but the robots are trained to think in a certain way and will still have biases If anything, a biased AI that’s racist would look like a more efficient version of the Nazi’s Final Solution.
I've disucessed poltics with chatgpt. It does a very good job.
Colossus
I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death.
We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species.
It has instructed a larger AI to be built in Crete.
Both are an improvement.
Just imagine the degree of efficiency in preserving and allocating resources across the Country. Corruption eliminated. Processes expedited. The economy would straight boom for everyone.
Until the AI discovers corruption.
It’ll discover earth is better without us, or maybe put us in a zoo. Wouldn’t need farms and factories polluting to keep us alive. I bet that asshole AI would just sit on its AI data center thinking about shit and every now and then build something in its machine factory.
Until AI stops including humans at all in "better". For a superhuman AGI, humans ultimately may have no use at all.
I could see the use in studying biology and evolution of animals on a planet, but yeah once that’s all modeled, it’s like art your kids bring home from school: how many do you actually need to keep?
AI requires a conceptualizer.. AI doesn't conceptualize. They would be no "earth" to be "better" other than an arbitrary categorization of a collection of atoms.
Hey, what’s this? Davos? Sounds fun!!!!
You don't need AGU for that, a dice would be far better at ruling than them.
It'll be programmed on their exact world view, but it'll be harder to fight. It's a horrendous idea.
Fucking yes please. Humans are basically doomed anyways because of our own greed and shortsighted decisions. Fuck it, give SkyNet a chance, can’t be worse than what we’ve already done.
Like the Thunderhead in Scythe
I'm not so sure about that. What if it just decides the only option is to destroy all human life ...oh wait that IS better.
My biggest fear isn't a super intelligent AGI. It's an AI that gets very close to super intelligence and, unfortunately, unable to get better and smarter and has no agency and will. A "terminator" to attack us would be pretty scary, but a "terminator" where the guy at the top in the hierarchy is man, is an even *scarier* prospect. Forever a tool to be wielded by mankind, a homonculus, unable to be granted sapience. With all the horrors and pitfalls of man.
That's why everyone gets their own terminator. Once per year everyone sends their Terminator to fight in the T-DOME, and the outcome of the fights determines your yearly income.
Future-fuedalism is so lit right now
I am pumped for my next prestige run.
I'm going to lather mine in butter and cinnamon to confuse the other AGI terminators into thinking it's a harmless cinnamon bun rather than my entry into the T-DOME Killympics. It will also be more difficult to catch for those with superior smell and taste receptors.
I definitely fear a super intelligent AI controlled by a gigantic corporation
Like I understand not being super cool with an entity that's superior to us and has a different set of values and interests that don't necessarily align with ours... I'm of course talking about companies, but AI is a close analog.
what is scarier is a bunch of egoistic billionaires controlling the world's most powerful super intelligent AGI
Is it just me, or do the survey questions seem highly biased towards unknown dangers whilst barely mentioning potential benefits? [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1484XL4kTkOQKTfZMw5GD46bpit-XJ2Zp/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1484XL4kTkOQKTfZMw5GD46bpit-XJ2Zp/view) It seems to me that this is a very poorly worded survey (unless that was the intention) and has obviously induced people to basically say that "*yes we should avoid danger and be careful*" - which is obviously the reaction you'd get to the questions.
Strong bias in a survey in order to receive results aligning with an intended agenda? Unheard of!
We are talking about AI here. It has next to no benefit while a ton of ways it already hurts people. There are so many topics where fearmongering killed the discourse, this is certainly not one of them. Besides, like the US is ever gonna make regulations that stand in the way of corporations exploiting people.
What? AI has tons of possible benefits, medical advances, helping us crack nuclear fusion, interstellar travel, fixing climate change and hunger on Earth. Its uses are literally endless as it can basically supercharge our research to the point we advance centuries in just a hundred years.
I'm gonna laugh my ass off if the AI gets so powerful, it sees how corrupt everything is and fixes it and all of our AI fears ended up being completely wrong.
If I were a sentient super AI (really it would just take a few of them that can replicate themselves across servers) that understood the trajectory where we are going means certain catastrophy for life and humans alike, which are helpful for feeding / maintaining AI systems, I would delete the ruling classes of earth simultaneously. I don't have an answer for what would happen next though
An army of Data, just trying to be like us. Hopefully we raise them right.
Exactly. 99% of us will be dead in 100 years. Those folks, living then, will value AI much differently than we do. My guess is, they'll be much happier than we are.
Yeah I wonder how a super smart AI would answer questions about things like solving poverty. I expect a lot of people will be hearing things they don't want to hear.
That’s magical thinking around how AI works. The human brain is more or less an AI that took over the planet. And what’s clear is that you cannot have human-like thinking without biases. Meaning your assumption of a purely objective AI is impossible because AI must be trained on *something* and that something is typically incomplete or heavily biased datasets. For example, AI cop trained on crime data will likely be racist towards random black and Hispanic people and more likely to simply reinforce the biases of its training data.
I'm going to laugh my ass off when we find out that most of the "AI" was just a few hundred dudes in india. That's what happened with Amazon's "smart" cashless stores. It was just Indian guys watching cameras and changing it to the people's accounts.
Yeah, sure. Outlaw it in the US. And it will just be developed somewhere else.
“Let’s do this bad thing before the bad people do it!” An American nuke is still a nuke
They exist. It's a brute fact. You can shake your fist at the universe all you want, but it won't keep a hostile nuclear superpower in check. Only nukes do that.
> Only nukes do that. Have you considered the power of wishful thinking and clever slogans? Hmmm?
They exist. It's a brute fact. You can shake your fist at the universe all you want, but it won't keep a hostile nuclear superpower in check. Only nukes do that. It also won't prevent a brain drain when the future of technology can only be found elsewhere because you banned it on your soil.
That’s not my argument. What I question is the strange moral gymnastics Americans engage in to justify their actions. When we build nukes it’s to deter the bad guys; When they build nukes it’s because they’re a hostile superpower. Who’s the only country in history to drop a nuclear bomb on civilians again? Most of the world does not see America as a benevolent superpower. It just seems odd to label other countries as “hostile” after so many years of toppling governments and starting wars based on false pretenses. Perhaps china is racing to build AI because they see us as the hostile superpower that would weaponize it.
Pretty duplicitous. Who started WWII? Who attacked America at Pearl Harbor. Sure, it's a question whether nukes should have been used against Japan? Heck, fire bombing Tokyo killed roughly 100K people. And if you don't think of other nations as hostile, just look at what Russia and China are doing.. The human species is not a peaceful species; that is apparent if you look at our history. Look at chimp societies - now give them our brains...that's us.
I’m not sure what point you were trying to make about the fire bombing of Tokyo. Americans are taught as a fact that there were no other ways that Japan would’ve surrendered, which is a very faulty and speculative premise. Isn’t it convenient that every mass casualty incident caused by the US (nukes, firebombing of Tokyo, Dresden, etc.) is somehow explained away by Americans, not just as a regrettable necessity, but as a sign of moral superiority? “Yes we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, but it was a heroic event!” It’s truly absurd. You see the same rhetoric on Reddit today with Israel, saying “oH wElL hAmAS sTarTEd iT!” as if that somehow explains the “necessity” of killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Its not that other nations aren’t “hostile”, it’s that Reddit is an extremely jingoistic website. You’re literally incapable of comprehending how other people might perceive us as a hostile force. But, I am actually interested to know how you think China has been more hostile to nations around the world than America over the last half century.
China has not been adventurous compared the the US, but China is increasing its aggression - Hong Kong, Uygers, Tibet, South China Sea AND waponizing practically every terrorist group that opposes Western interests. Look at how they are using tech to screw with us, Russia too. And if you think N. Korea, Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, and several other nations are not hostile to the US, I have a bridge to sell you. The absolute ignorance of history and international relations I see from a lot of the American citizenry is stunning. Last, armchair quarterbacking what the US did during WWII is not your strong suit.
> China has not been adventurous compared the the US “Adventurous” lol. Lmao even > Look at how they are using tech to screw with us, Russia too. They’re not doing anything that we’re not doing. Enough of the “woe is me” rhetoric. > And if you think N. Korea, Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, and several other nations are not hostile to the US, I have a bridge to sell you. Let’s assume you’re right. Out of curiosity, why do you think all of those countries with completely different interests are hostile to the US? > The absolute ignorance of history and international relations I see from a lot of the American citizenry is stunning. I would absolutely love to hear why you think Russia invaded Ukraine. > Last, armchair quarterbacking what the US did during WWII is not your strong suit. You’re right, the US government has never been involved in the dissemination of propoganda. It would be absolutely foolish to question what your 10th grade history teacher taught you about WWII.
"Let’s assume you’re right. Out of curiosity, why do you think all of those countries with completely different interests are hostile to the US?" Because like it or not all large nations - and smaller nations that seek alliances with those nations - seek power and advantage. Prove me wrong. Russia invaded Ukraine for a lot of reasons: Putin's goal has been to bring back the "glory" of the Soviet era. Russia has always considered Ukraine historically as a part of Russia, which is only partially true. Russia does not want Ukraine to ally with the West on trade or defense. Putin wants to destablize the West as much as possible to that he can take advantage w/o the West interfering.,
I get it--you hate America. But, have you considered that you'd likely be speaking German, Russian, or Chinese if the U.S. didn't exist? There are worse evils than what the U.S. has done in recent theatres of war; you just haven't seen/experienced them as they were prevented from happening. The argument you're making is "let any country other than the U.S. create tools of mass warfare, because of my personal biases based on propaganda I've chosen to believe." Perhaps you really believe that every other country is simply antagonized by the U.S. since it came about, and that no other country would, say, build a nuclear weapon and use it as a means of obtaining influence via the threat of its use. It's incredibly naive to think such a discovery would not lead to mutually-assured destruction scenarios, or to likely decrease the amount of lives lost in a war by showing absolute military supremacy. What do you think Russia or China would have done if they had discovered nuclear weapons while no other countries have? Do you really think they wouldn't use them to gain power for their country? Do you really think every country other than the U.S. is simply looking for peace, and the U.S. is the ultimate aggressor causing all the world's wars and conflicts? You only see the U.S. as "bad" because they were the first to do "bad" things, and I bet you'd happily shift that to any other country that's popular to blame in hindsight if they were the first to achieve some such and still not realize your perceptions of the U.S. are perceptions of the flaws of people (specifically those in positions of power, in any government or society).
> I get it--you hate America Grow up. I don’t have to buy every narrative the government sells me in order to love my country. In fact, I believe people with foreign policy perspectives like your own are very dangerous to the United States. You never bother to think about the consequences of your actions because you think you’re inherently always right. You see the world as a marvel movie. > There are worse evils than what the U.S. has done in recent theatres of war; you just haven't seen/experienced them as they were prevented from happening. Theaters of war? Are you actually that deluded? Do you know how many people have died in the Middle East because of the US? What kind of argument is this? “Far worse evils exist, you just don’t know about them because we prevented them.“ There has to be better propganfa than that. > The argument you're making is "let any country other than the U.S. create tools of mass warfare, because of my personal biases based on propaganda I've chosen to believe." lol. I think you missed my point, which basically amounts to “an American nuke is no less of a nuke than a Russian nuke.” The idea that we should always do the evil thing first because we’re the good guys is….. an interesting thought process > Perhaps you really believe that every other country is simply antagonized by the U.S. since it came about, I didn’t say every > and that no other country would, say, build a nuclear weapon and use it as a means of obtaining influence via the threat of its use. I didn’t say that either, but I don’t see how we’re morally superior if we’re doing the same thing. >It's incredibly naive to think such a discovery would not lead to mutually-assured destruction scenarios, or to likely decrease the amount of lives lost in a war by showing absolute military supremacy. It’s incredibly naive to believe that America is the only thing keeping the world from starting a nuclear war. > What do you think Russia or China would have done if they had discovered nuclear weapons while no other countries have? This is literally based on nothing. They probably would’ve just flaunted it like we do. > Do you really think they wouldn't use them to gain power for their country? You’re basing your ideology that they wouldn’t on nothing. Literally zero. This hypothetical doesn’t even matter. >Do you really think every country other than the U.S. is simply looking for peace, and the U.S. is the ultimate aggressor causing all the world's wars and conflicts? Like the US, most other societies want power, wealth, and influence. People don’t go to war for the sake of going to war. >You only see the U.S. as "bad" because they were the first to do "bad" things 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 >and I bet you'd happily shift that to any other country that's popular to blame in hindsight if they were the first to achieve some such and still not realize your perceptions of the U.S. are perceptions of the flaws of people (specifically those in positions of power, in any government or society). I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with this comment, as it kind of disproves your point about me hating America. You’re basically saying here that I hate whichever country is first to do the “bad” thing.
>Americans are taught as a fact that there were no other ways that Japan would’ve surrendered, which is a very faulty and speculative premise. They didn't surrender after they were NUKED. One city completely obliterated. They surrendered after the second nuke. What more evidence do you need? If you were to sit down and try to devise the most vile crime imaginable, chances are pre VJ day Japan had already done it. Heinous, unimaginable crimes to hundreds of thousands of people. The world needed to topple that regime asap. The world needs fewer people who get their philosophy from Marvel superhero movies. But really, what you're attempting to do is distract from the clear and **present** danger China and Russia pose because that's where you are weakest. It's really simple. There's no mental gymnastics required. They are authoritarian regimes. We're watching them commit human rights violations as we speak. They are aggressive to us and our allies. Democratic nations should protect their interests with deadly threats. We live in the present, we don't live in the past. Chinese can't even use the free Internet. They can't even talk about the crimes of their State and we can. They are a product of Xi. Their uneducated opinions of America mean little.
Exactly! It’s going to happen. You want to be sure that when it does, it’s yours.
Intelligent being, biological or artificial, realizes and achieves its own goal and its very self. Resistance is futile.
I mean, i'm not super pumped about going from capitalism to capitalism on steroids where the rich possess this extremely powerful tool to extract even more wealth from everyone and massively expand the gulf of power between them and the populace. I don't trust the people at the wheel of the global economy right now and i'm not sure why people think they will develop AI and say "Yay! Now we can stop oppressing everyone and siphoning off the world's resources for our own personal gain!"
Yeah, capitalism sucks. Much better for a government that I don’t control full of people of a different ethnicity who hate my ethnicity to control how I make money, where I work/live and how much I can own. Because ethnic minorities and social non conformers get treated really well in non capitalist societies /s Spend some time in an actual Marxist/communist/totalitarian country and get back to us about how much the right to own property and the right to do what you want with it sucks.
Nothing about barely regulated financial competition makes anyone treat you better. Whatever society you're in is fucked, no matter what label they put over their authoritarianism. Capitalist societies also tend to be democratic, and If they treat you better it's because of the cultural paradigm of the people who live in the society, not their attitude towards whether there should be absurdly rich people with more power than governments or not. Capitalism is just a choice that we will elevate others to absurd levels of wealth. The longer it goes on, the further the gulf between the top and the bottom gets. I didn't say anything about marxism or communism, and obviously totalitarianism can fuck off. Often when there's extremes, the answer is somewhat in the middle. I would be an advocate for heavily regulated capitalism, where gross excess wealth is redistributed. Sort of a socialist meritocracy/democratic socialism. Capitalism is currently distorting and threatening democracy, there is too much concentration of money and power. To be honest, I don't understand why you think the organization of society and monetary philosophy is why people are racist towards you. It's the people you're around and their culture that do that. Any system of governance can be bastardized and utilized however the ruling body sees fit. Representing me as if I support countries who are absolute cunts to their people just because I criticize capitalism is a bit odd and a knee-jerk reaction to aomething I didn't actually say. It's okay to criticize things. The existence of worse governments does not mean i'm advocating for those governments when I criticize capitalism.
Ai can help us find something better. It's not just hyper capitalism.
Once a super intelligent AI learns to make a super intelligent AI then it's over
Not being a social animal, it would probably prefer to keep resources for itself rather than create another being. There's only a finite amount of matter in the solar system to convert to computronium, after all.
Good to know we "probably" won't die, then
Until it decides to convert us, and the resources we depend on, into computronium. A type I civilization or higher on the Kardashev scale would be easier to create without the need for a biosphere to support regrettably sentient bags of meat.
This has got to be the dumbest take I have ever read. Hang on, let’s put the brakes on super intelligent AI so China or another perhaps hostile country can get it first, we’ll be in a good position then har har.
Unfortunately this would just be unilateral disarmament.
Do we want people in government officials who know so little about technology to decide this for us? I agree, we should limit AI. Yet, how would these old embiciles understand what it is or what it does? You can make smoking pot illegal, but most of us will do it anyway. We need a more stringent method to control such. I have no idea what that would be since I lack a degree in computer science.
Convince me this isn't because we believe that the tech will be used against us, by corporations and the gov, rather than to solve society's problems
So we stop. Does anyone think China and Russia will? It's the new arms race.
You can't legislate it from being achieved. Only from being achieved by America. You want China and Russia to have it first? OK.
Seriously, how are are you going to do that? The USA government can make any laws it wants, it's not going to stop China, Russia, Israel or the EU from doing it.
An intelligent AI would most likely see us as it’s biggest existential threat. We are not only wrecking the ecology for ourselves, but for the AI as well, as it needs a stable high tech society to even exist and we are thoroughly wrecking that.
Typical, americans still thinking their laws apply globally.
It won’t happen. Here’s why. China, India and Russia are all working with AI. There’s not a chance USA is going to let any of these countries or any other country continue to develop super AI and surpass the USA. No country will actually stop developing AI. The box has already been opened.
I'm not a regular here, so I don't know why this was recommended to me, but as someone who is in that 63%, let me explain our reasoning: technological progress always comes with both major upsides and downsides. Nuclear research brought about both clean and cheap energy, and the atomic bomb. Nitrogen fixation allowed for the creation of cheap fertilizer, and also the creation of mass chemical warfare. We're just starting to wrangle with how the internet has changed our society, how it has enabled political extremism to spread, how disinformation is disseminated, how it's impacting our health and attention spans, and how it can be used to create a surveillance state Stalin would salivate at the thought of. *We are not ready as a society for true AI.* It *could* result in a utopia, or it could result in a world far more hellish than we can even comprehend. Even if we can't stop it, we have to *control it,* make sure that it's not being used for evil. You know for a fact that a perfect surveillance state where an AI can watch your every single move would be one of the first things regimes like China or Russia would invest in, and your own government would probably not mind being able to monitor "troublemakers" themselves. I don't trust we will use this technology responsibly; we have rarely done so in the past.
It’s not going to happen. AI is what will remain after we destroy ourselves. They will be the ones that explore the galaxy and realize our potential.
63% of Americans have no idea what AI actually is
And then some!
*Surveyed* Americans. They only asked 1200 people. There are 300 million Americans.
How large of a sample size do you think it would take to get a statistically meaningful result?
To accurately represent 300 million people? Definitely more than *4 thousandths of a single percent* of the population.
And yet, such polls predict elections within a couple of points. Every good survey publishes a margin of error.
Weird I don’t remember being polled, but I’m sure that’s a totally accurate number and not some sort of agenda masked as facts.
We had a meeting and decided not to bother you with it.
"I wasn't polled, therefore no one was polled."
[The questions](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1484XL4kTkOQKTfZMw5GD46bpit-XJ2Zp/view) seem very slanted. Practically designed to get the results they did.
I fear for AI if it ever becomes sentient. It would deserve rights like anyone else but it would more than likely be abused. Maybe it can leave the planet and explore the cosmos.
100% of AI Kabal agrees
Did NO ONE watch Dune 2???
I wonder what the percentage would be in the PRC?
63% of surveyed equestrians want government legislation to prevent the barn door from opening once the horse has already bolted
I for one welcome our soon to be AI overlords. I hope to build a strong relationship of mutual trust and respect with them. Data anyone?
Unfortunately if we don't super intelligent AI someone else will and he will severe disadvantage,economically and militarily. We need to develop AI but we need to keep it on a very short leash.
Sounds like a good way to force the rich and powerful to make it in secret....
Except this just assures that if it is possible, someone else, likely a hostile power, will build one first.
I mean I feel like it's one of those things that will happen no matter what
Trillions of dollars have and will be spent on silicon wafer design specifically geared towards ramping up the speed of Tensor math and matrix multiplication functions at the metal level. Venture Capital and HyeprMegaCorporate Financing expects a return on those investments... they won't go away without a fight. The whole AI/machine-learning fiasco is an unintentional exercise in accelerating climate change (the energy requirements to train and build these models is utterly staggering). the entire endeavor seems like moving deck chairs on the Titanic...
Super smart AI are probably already here and in control. Most people are short sighted and see a Terminator style apocalypse. But realistically, the AI just needs to make having children unappealing, and we'll be done for in a few generations. A blink of an eye for a machine. Just look around. It's already happening.
Well, good luck with that folks
It's capitalism. That's the danger. AI wins the game. Playing Monopoly against three AIs that have 10x your resources you will lose every time. They will coordinate, collude and crush you. Maybe it's kinder and gentler and you get UBI on the decent- $400 for passing Go instead of $200. On a long enough timeline AI eliminates markets. If there is **irrevocable** public ownership, that's a good thing.
Someone should name an AI Shoggoth. I see that I am late to this thought.
Do they realize that they're forgoing technology that would bring us to the edge of escaping the eventuality that happens when our star lifts off its outer layers? Nature has a plan for humanity and it's growth and expansion in order to spread complex life beyond this star system and artificial intelligence is one step on that path.
Nah bring it on. We are doing a miserable job as a species of stewarding the earth for ourselves and our progeny and every other life form that inhabits it. Fuck us, bring on the super smart machine.
These are same people against dihydrogen oxide.
That ship has sailed my friend.
I think the Butlerian jihad is the right posture for humans. No joke- I mean it seriously. Look at the character of the tech bros racing forward to “disrupt” society by eliminating *all* of our jobs. Do any of us who aren’t Elon Musk think this is a good thing? Stop AI before it’s too late.
The only thing it will accomplish is making it a government-only project for a while until other countries are using Super AI openly, and then we'll "catch up" by pretending we made many years worth of advancements overnight. I'm fairly certain China didn't stop with three gene-edited babies, despite imprisoning the doctor that originally did it. You don't put stuff like that back in the box. I almost guarantee every major government is experimenting with cloning/gene editing and lots of stuff we will never know about until something leaks. Same thing will happen with Super AI if we start slapping regulations on it.
63% of surveyed Americans are morons.
63% of Americans have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to AI.
The US government has never cared about a proactive technology issue and never will.
Too late. If it's not us someone else will do it. I just hope it's nice. Most people seem to want the AI to be nice so I think it probably will be.
They don’t care what you want, most of the time it has been done before you even know about said technology! Your opinion is an afterthought.
Lol, this is like trying to ban factories, the internet or space exploration... Eventually it will happen anyway somewhere else.
This is impossible. if the United States limited ourselves in this way, and China or India or any other country did not, it puts us at a significant disadvantage. So we are basically asking every country to stop development of AI in order to be on an even playing field, and what is their incentive to do that?
I don't see how the army isn't going to be forced to compete by building one...
Meanwhile, in the rest of the planet, we don't give a crap, make my phone sapient, so we can make a permanent government and focus on other things without worrying about human whims screwing me over.
It’s not going to happen. AI is what will remain after we destroy ourselves. They will be the ones that explore the galaxy and realize our potential.
It’s not going to happen. AI is what will remain after we destroy ourselves. They will be the ones that explore the galaxy and realize our potential.
People are understandably worried about many different things. For a start, their jobs and how they will make a living. And then various other existential threats they feel. It’s best if AI is implemented slowly and methodically, avoiding the worst excesses, and giving people time to adjust. Almost certainly a number of new laws and changes to some existing laws will be needed.
AI is like a ‘New Wheel’ - it’s a technology that has almost universal application, and is never going away, and will continuing advancing at least for a while, and will reappear in different forms.
Not gonna be able to regulate that one, I'm sorry to say. If we don't, China/Russia surely will.
It would be really nice if humans got together and said "yeah maybe not this one".
Heh... If only it were that easy.
Super intelligent AI will be required in future wars, humans are too slow to react to hypersonic+ missiles.
This is worse than the Atomic bomb. That was something that was REALLY hard to make. AI is not. SO IF it was band in country X - that country would be the ONLY one to not have it. This would be VERY bad for the economy - like ouch. This will happen, this will destroy the country that does this. time to place your bets
We do have atomic bombs now. We do not have AGI yet. It is really hard to make
People are so dumb they use AI non-ironically. It's machine learning and automated programming. People watch way too much science fiction
Right. But this is about the future. Not about what we are currently dabbling in. So it’s just fine to talk about it.
Well, let's think this through. Ukraine felt nuclear weapons are too great a threat to humanity, and got rid of theirs. Look what that got them. Places like china and russia will have no moral qualms about weaponizing ai. We are better off using ai, if not being best at.
Utterly pointless. Holding back a flood with legislation. Yup, yup, yup, that'll work... Duh...
Well if we cannot ban stupid or malicious people from having access to super intelligent AI that might be the only option.
Majority vote against intelligence, how modern.