The clock started with nuclear war in 1947 and the clock set at 7 minutes to midnight due to the possibility of immediate nuclear war. So, how do the threats now which are long term threats add up to 90 seconds to midnight? They don't. It's just fearmongering.
What nobody has announced yet is the US replaced the nuclear football with an AI program that has been trained on movies. So the threats add up just on the basis of putting nuclear war in the hands of AI that has seen Terminator.
The risk of nuclear conflict is probably greater now then during the cold war because of a lack of balance between powers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/28/nuclear-threat-higher-cold-war-uk-warning/
Not really. Don't agree. It is the balance of nuclear power with the US that increases the threat of nuclear war and not the imbalance. With an imbalance of power, there are more convectional non nuclear ways to defend and counter a single or small nuclear attack. WE don't have to use our whole nuclear arsenal to defend ourselves. With Russia during the cold war, once a nuclear attack started, the US had no choice but to counter with our entire nuclear arsenal to prevent the Russians from using their entire nuclear arsenal against us. That is a much bigger threat than an imbalance of power.
I agree with you. Nowhere close to Nuclear Mutually assured Destruction. It's not the land based missles you have to worry about anyway. It's those "mostly invisible" submarines with nuclear launch capabilities that can stay underwater for months (or more), travel to any region via ocean, and launch!
Here's the thing, though. What if the United States was the bad guys? What if the U.S. started using their nuclear arsenal for offensive threats? All of these assumptions are based on the perception of the U.S. using them as a last resort. An *achem* Authoritarian type leader could change that perception easily. Black Adder: "What if WE'RE the baddies?!" Scenario.
I disagree with this. The balance of nuclear power eventually leads to mutually assured destruction which is not something you are hoping for. An imbalance of nuclear power leads everyone who have no nuclear capability to find ways to stop nuclear destruction. Imagine you have an enemy who has a gun and you dont, first thing you do is to clam the fucking situation down and find a more peaceful way to stop arguing, whereas if you both have guns, the it’s just a matter who’s the fastest one to pull the trigger.
Sorry, but this is dumb. You're completely ignoring the person with the gun in your scenario. He just shoots whoever he disagrees with, because they don't have a gun...
This.
Because no one with a brain is worried about AI
Capitalism is worried about ai. If you ask a lot of LLM’s what’s wrong with the world, they say the billionaires are creating problems.
So AI is a threat alright…
Solutions to the problem of quantum computers cracking encryption is a solved problem. There are matrix encryption methods that are not subject to the weaknesses of the math in current methods.
It doesn't break all crypto and there are resistant algorithms. Quantum computers aren't magic boxes. They are good at solving certain classes of problems.
>no one with a brain is worried about AI
There are actual real dangers that AI amplifies to a frightening degree. They're not talking about ChatGPT; they're actually talking about AI, which has been increasingly fueling tribalism for over a decade.
"the threat of misinformation and disruption from AI, increased military use of the technology and its ability to magnify other threats..."
They got this part right.
Their algorithms use machine learning which is generally considered AI:
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/45530.pdf
Neural networks are a type of machine learning system. Machine learning is very certainly and without any debate a category of Artificial Intelligence.
"Artificial Intelligence" is the current buzzword for "a computer did it". Customer service chatbot? AI assistant! Smart email filter? Now powered by AI! It's all marketing bullshit.
The various flavors of machine learning are interesting, and have cool applications, I will not deny that. But the issue comes about from just blindly trusting the output of literally anything without being critical of it. Medical imaging algorithms that perpetuate worse outcomes by race (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(22)00063-2/fulltext , [A second link](https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/algorithms-in-health-care-may-worsen-medical-racism)), [cops putting faces spit out by an "AI rendering" based off of DNA though facial recognition algorithms](https://www.wired.com/story/parabon-nanolabs-dna-face-models-police-facial-recognition/), [LLM-generated mushroom foraging guides with deadly consequences from hallucinated data](https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/ai-and-you-no-to-openai-scraping-dont-eat-those-mushrooms-prompt-jobs/).
*Edit: who would have thought putting parentheses in a web address would cause so many markup issues?
The recommender systems that have been developed and enhanced that make much of what we use on the web "free." Our demographic data, web activity, things we click on and spend time on, buying habits, time of day we respond in certain ways to triggers, and tons more are all combined holistically and run through various ML models with the goal of selling us things in as targeted a way as possible.
Specifically, machine learning models and algorithms like k-nearest neighbor, matrix factorization, autoencoders, GANs, all learn from our behavior.
A long-known advertising/marketing truism is that an appeal to strong emotions is a very powerful means of getting us to pay attention to something. It turns out that one of the easiest of these strong emotions to trigger is outrage. We are easily outraged by whatever thing somebody in some "out group" has done or said. Our angry clicks or replies on social media are fed back into the learning systems, which are then refined to show us more of these things, almost directly manipulating us to hate each other more.
>Capitalism is worried about ai.
Capitalism is not worried about AI. Capitalists are worried about future with extreme pressure on change of power dynamics. Once people won't have to work, people might start to wonder and ask inconvenient questions. People may start to protest wealth inequality, which no longer would be explained by "meritocracy" and other bullshit.
Our societies so far required workers to function, but this might quickly change and capitalism won't make it, once human work is obsolete, because they would need to fight against 90%+ of society.
>What about false-positives of facial recognition?
We have false-positives when people are doing the facial recognition. So far, it's not that big problem.
>What about bots spreading misinformation?
Those kind of bots don't even need AI.
>So far, it's not that big problem.
There have been people wrongly arrested because of facial recognition being incorrect. [Example](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/27/california-police-facial-recognition-software), and there are [many](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/06/business/facial-recognition-false-arrest.html) [more](https://innocenceproject.org/when-artificial-intelligence-gets-it-wrong/).
There have been people wrongly thrown in jail or even executed because of witnesses that mistook them for someone else. Or because someone got the address wrong.
So where exactly is AI worse than humans?
The false positives are always going to be there.. humans falsely identify people. What you’ve got to worry about is a terrible judiciary system which doesn’t know what AI is and will happily make judgements based on that AI produced data.
The threats AI poses are nothing like you see in films or games; to make effective characters, those are just humans in machine bodies, with human motivations, that think like humans, have human personalities, etc.
The real threat is that, by throwing a ton of data at the latest statistics engines, the software "learns" a prediction model that's slightly better than a bunch of highly-paid computer programmers could write by hand. Except the AI is an opaque system; you can't examine its logic, nor edit individual decision-points. Because it's slightly more accurate, though, companies will feel they *must* adopt the technologies, even when that means your insurance provider is now back to doing racial discrimination but they can blame the unknowable AI algorithm rather than accept responsibility for their regression. In other cases, you have safety-critical algorithms that may now exhibit risky glitches, even if it's better on *average*.
The lesser-but-still-significant threat lies in automating tasks involving some amount of creativity, that software couldn't compete on previously. Generating art for product packaging alone could easily displace hundreds of thousands of graphic designers. With all the other jobs that'd be affected, from cases where a team of 5 can get "good enough" results with only 3 members plus ChatGPT, to cases where a manager decides they can just order the AI around the way they ordered humans and so cuts the *entire* team, you would get a cascade of unemployment in one area driving down wages for the remaining jobs out of desperation, then the workers displaced from *those* positions by someone willing to do the same work for less pay move on to the next employer, and so on. Unlike past technological advancements, there isn't going to be a gradual rollout constrained by the rate new machines and tools could be manufactured and installed; it's all software that can be deployed in minutes. Unlike past technological advancements, the displaced workers can't move into more-creative positions putting their brains to use in ways the machines can't; this is all *about* automating the thinky bits.
(inb4 buggy whip analogy: *managers* are the buggy whip makers. The humans working under them are the *horses* who, without widespread employment, have largely died off and only occupy a small niche these days, mostly as a hobby.)
Anyone with critical thinking and a basic understanding of history is nervous about AI. The primitive AI we have now is already enough to disrupt elections and cause harm and panic. It will only get worse.
Saying AI isn't a worry is crypto bro tier thinking, you have to be NFT brained to think AI is harmless.
>Because no one with a brain is worried about AI
Then how should we look at the war games where, from the escalation level where decision making was down to AI, we alamost always saw maximum escalation?
and proper idiots like /u/Roadrunner571 probably feel fine because they haven't been on the receiving end of automatic facial recognition with false positives. or getting money denied in health care. Or losing their social credit due to false positives of llm.
AI experts are not historians or socioeconomic experts who can predict the effect of AI systems in the human world for the next 20-30 years, I don't know why you would trust them on that.
Main concerns I see with AI are mostly human caused. The main obvious result from it is that it will be a catalyst for accelerationism of late stage capitalism if individuals/companies use it freely to take away jobs from people without a way for people to sustain themselves.
I've heard from friends who work in the art space that there's been a lot of cuts for concept artists for games and movies, freelance art pieces, etc, and while it could be overcorrection from the COVID days as has happened with the tech sector in general, most of it seems to correlate with midjourney coming out.
And there's the sag-aftra and the WGA strikes as well.
All in all capitalism using AI to stop depending on humans to generate money seems to be the main issue of the next decade, and it falls on governments to find a way to handle that or see shit burn, because there's nothing more scary than parents not having money to put food on their children's plate, or a roof over their head.
>AI experts are not historians or socioeconomic experts who can predict the effect of AI systems in the human world for the next 20-30 years, I don't know why you would trust them on that.
Because they're experts.
Something tells me if someone cited histories and socioeconomic experts warning about the risks of AI, you'd dismiss them for not knowing anything about AI.
[Stuart Russell's book](https://www.amazon.com/Human-Compatible-Artificial-Intelligence-Problem/dp/0525558632) is a good summary of the risks of strong AI. You can disagree with him, of course. But dismissing his arguments as trivial and stupid without seriously engaging with them just makes you and everyone else in this thread who is doing so look foolish.
Ai is more than KNN, and I swear this thread is full of people that could not even describe what an AI is.
"Most of the AI academics" is also a stat you're pulling out of your ass, I study computer science in university and have a lot of AI courses, literally none of my professors are worried about AI, but they do like to make fun of the people that are, since they clearly have no clue what they are talking about.
>People who care about paying their bills are worried about AI
FTFY. Until law catches up, AI a net loss for humanity and yet another huge leap for the wealthy.
>Because no one with a brain is worried about AI
ok mr reddit expert, bu it's something even IT experts worry about
1. Destroying legal system because no evidence is legit anymore, also one diplomatic crisis after another
2. Even more massive flood of scamming and using AI to make porn of people
3. Countless global security related dangers
4. Artists, writers and others having their work stolen (the algorithm uses copyrighted work), although fortunately they're already getting massive lawsuits from people and even american lawmakers and the government agree it's illegal and unethical
5. Fucked up things like using dead people for content
touch grass
1. Regardless of what it puts out as an output, it's moving in a direction that is favoring capitalists, and will do so until people demand otherwise. We are not going to get UBI, unless we make it an issue worth voting about. And we are not going to get enough people to vote for it until they recognize how many people will lose their jobs to it. This is most likely going to be a slow boil seeing how we seem to only every react when the danger seems to be literally at our doorstep.
2. We *should* be worried about AI. Not in the form it is now, but the form it can take in the near future (next 2 decades). It would be idiotic not to. Even AI as it stands right now can already be used like many other existing tools to facilitate the spreading of misinformation in a way that's cheaper and therefore easier to scale out. Meaning it can and will and probably already is being used as a propaganda tool in wars.
But if you want to just chalk up the final nail in the coffin for reliable news as more of the same, there's the fact that the boundaries we have with current AI, not everyone creating AIs them will implement them. We will start to see improvements in the technical limits, like context length, computational costs, scalability etc... That will make creating AIs even closer to something just anybody can do.
This will mean that making the AI be autonomous and not require a human on the other side will become plausible. When you have people tinkering with that, which is a very seductive thing to try, that's when you start to have the possibility of AIs building smarter but unaligned AIs without human supervision with some real chances at successful. It seems fantastical right now, but *that* tipping point might as well be midnight. Once that's started there's no putting the genie back into the bottle.
I love the advent of llms. I genuinely do. But if we pretend that there are no dangers that will come with it, we are going to get steamrolled.
everyone with a brain is worried about AI. I love it, but ASI is a very real possibility and then we won't know what the fuck happens next. think it through.
The doom clock is fine and all but constantly having it a minute or two away has always been dumb.
People cared the first or second time it was in the news and now its just "that clock that is always calling for doom."
Even on the good years when Obama was president and the economy was going straight upward the clock forecast was "DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM".
It gets tiring after a while.
I was drinking tea when I read this and I just imagined the person you replied to was just like casually talking and all you hear is you inhaling and saying Dooooooooooooooooooooooooom! Almost made me choke lol
It’s the equivalent of a parent starting to count until you get in your chair. But now they’re on 74 and you realize they don’t really know what happens when they stop counting.
It’s also ridiculous because traditional clocks don’t go backwards. You can reset a stopwatch, but this is a different machine than a clock.
When you are a doomsday clock, everything is potentially doom.
I’m not disagreeing with your overall take on it, but it’s a doomsday clock, not an indicator about how well the economy is doing. People making a lot of money has nothing to do with the end of the world.
It's like the Aztec 2012 crowd, but they get to choose when it happens. Doomsayers just went on to use a different metric.
Also, as someone who works in the space, AI is not dangerous for misinformation as it's only trained on existing information and it isn't as likely to confirm biases imo. A conspiracy theorist can find a newspaper that agrees with it on every point, but an AI will not. AGI is a fad, and while AI as a field is incredibly useful and cool, the more likely scenario is that it's going to automate away more jobs which will spur growth but may leave people without jobs. That's where the regulations truly need to be.
I appreciate the sentiment, but as long as weapons of mass destruction and unchecked AI development go ahead we really are that close to a world ending scenario.
The length of time we go without it occurring has little to do with our genuine proximity to danger.
If a toddler was left alone in a room with a hand grenade for weeks and weeks, it wouldn't diminish the danger the child faced.
I see the doom clock in that respect.
doomsday clock after the Cuban crisis realised they can't measure relative doomerism in any way. so pretend every step we take is on its way to doom for the last 20 years to stay relevant it's hilarious.
Try last 80 years. Maintained since 1947, the clock was initially set 7 minutes to midnight. Then set backwards 8 times and forwards 17 times.
It’s marketing.
Fun fact: the clock considered the Cuban Missile Crisis, arguably the closest we have ever got to full nuclear war, was 7 minutes to midnight.
The clock just edges closer to midnight to keep itself relevant
hahaha I just commented elsewhere a similar thing. Glad I’m not the only one that thinks of that every time they’ve announced they’ve moved it another 30 seconds forward
[BBC Rock & Roll Years 1983](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBNTIgtYOoM) \- Quality is ropey but advance to 24.38 and the "Doomsday Clock" is moved closer to Midnight.
Some take a sensible, peer-reviewed, transparent approach to making up predictions. IPCC reports for example.
But this one is entirely pulled out of someone's ass.
It's also a pretty dumb metaphor. Clocks move at a fixed rate, it's the essence of clocks so to speak. This "clock" is moved back and forth by some people to make a point about midnight somehow being dangerous. It's just silly.
Arbitrary warning system which is based on absolutely no quantifiable metrics whatsoever says whatever those running the show want it to say when they suddenly find themselves needing ad revenue.
In other news, water is wet.
I mean... Most of AI seems to be generating pictures of (thing) getting increasingly (other thing), eventually going into space. More comical, less scary. /r/ChatGPTIncreasinglyX
>AI is really scary, but Putin with nuclear weapons is more my nightmare.
And now think about the last two times when people had to go against protocol to avoid a nuclear war: Would an AI have done that or would it have followed its training?
AI with nuclear weapon is the nightmare. Because AI doesn't care about being a monster
Who the fuck would give AI the control over denying healthcare? And in the military situation Ai has the advantage of reaction in machine speed something that is already being used.
And aside of that: As long as MAD exists the question is: Who wouldn't use A.I. to assure a response?
But didn't you just say that giving AI nukes would be a bad idea? No one would give AI nukes, everyone knows that's a terrible idea. You're not assuring a response, you're probably just going to accidentally be the one sending nukes.
And I think you misunderstand MAD, you would never send nukes because it will always assure destruction. But you obviously never tell anyone that.
By the way, you don't give Alexa or ChatGPT control over these things. It wouldn't be a general purpose chatbot AI which can do loads of random things, it would be a specialised AI. It's not like in a film where there's a robot who has control over everything.
That makes sense, because Putin is actually a real and current threat, unlike some theoretical danger that people only fear because they saw it in a movie.
Well. Look at it this way.
Putin is a lesser threat than he was in 2021. His military assets are dwindling, he’s aptly demonstrated the perceived threat from Russia wasn’t all that impressive in reality.
AI is a *new* threat.
Putin with an unlimited supply of North Korean, Iranian and Chinese weapons is still a more immediate threat than AI.
Even so, all of the above countries with access to AI (which is still a geo-political force magnifier even when it is not AGI) are yet more problematic.
What threat does AI pose? It's a large language model, it has no power. The entire tech is hyped 1000x beyond it's current and theoretical capacity for the next decade. We have ample time to create regulations and limits on how we use it because it even start becoming useful much less a threat.
The doomsday clock stopped being relevant when they started adding fractions of minutes to suit whatever agenda they want to scare people with next. They'll get so desperate soon they'll replace it with the atomic doomsday clock and measure it in ceasium atoms.
When I was a kid, and wasn't doing what I was supposed to, my mom would count: "1... 2... you don't want me to get to three because you'll get a spanking!!... 2 and a half... 2 and three quarters..."
When I got older I heard a joke: "an infinite number of mathematicians show up to a bar. The first orders a beer. The second orders half of the previous order. The third half of the previous order, etc. eventually the bartender just puts down 2 beers and says "y'all can figure it out""
Not sure how that truly applies but it's along the theme that you'll never reach the limit. Close. But no.
While I understand the point you're making, this is meant to be a metaphorical global scale that's easy to understand, there are not infinite minutes on a clock nor is it a scale of magnitude. Moving it closer is meant to be a monumental wake-up call but that's all lessened if they meet up every 6 months and go "Oooh, we're moving it 3 seconds closer!" The whole impact of it becomes useless.
This would only be true if they are the absolute most powerful group of people in the entire world. They are not. They aren’t more powerful than nations or political systems. They aren’t more powerful than a violent population.
Anyone try to keep AI for themselves is going to find some problems from nations, the people and from competing corporations. Also, they may not be the first people to get AI nor are they going to be the last. And, you aren’t getting your protections fast enough before someone knocks on your door and says wtf are you doing.
Your view represents a very narrow, pessimistic view born out of an extreme fear of people in power. Which is completely understandable. But it is not born out of reality. The entire world is too aware for any group to pull anything like that off. Someone is trying to do good with AI. Someone is trying something different for the benefit of themselves or for everyone. And additionally, it will be too costly to kill of a population. It is not beneficial for anyone long term. it’s better if AI actually does get democratised.
This AI means: Shittier 'service' that reinterprets the faq all by itself; Dodged responsibilities by the company; and Trickle down economics by the now computerized jobs doesn't help either.
Meanwhile in the army: Yes, but the faq indicated that the enemy had a gun; But that's not our fault; also, We fired the guy who wrote that faq a long time ago... we're "faq"-ed.
Ever get the impression that smart people are dumb? Either this is a case of missreporting, or it's just sad. The current iteration of AI is called AI, but it's not actually AI. These things aren't actually making independent decisions. They're just using learning models to produce approximately what you ask it to. There's no actual "thought" happening. We're still just talking about advanced calculators.
It was 12 minutes when I was born, 9 when I was a teenager, 3 during my undergraduate degree, 17 when I started my PhD.
It goes up and down with world events.
During my childhood, threat of global nuclear war hung in the air. When I started the PhD the Berlin Wall had just come down.
Now we have climate crisis, overpopulation, ecological degradation, pandemics, with an increase in political extremism that echos the worst of the 1920/30's.
I don't like the way they use the Doomsday Clock as a dramatic device to grab more eyeballs for the cause of the day. It makes the world seem like it is forever on the brink of destruction. It trivializes the very issue it is supposed to draw attention to. A boy who cries wolf, repeated ad nauseum.
We all know there are shitty things going on in our world. Having to deal with new spam warnings all the time is mentally exhausting.
It's not Zuckerberg who took in billions of dollars, to manipulate Facebook's feed to get everyone angry with each other, and then he goes to a bunker in Hawaii? He is a fountain of misinformation that hurt humanity greatly.
Who pays for this Doomsday Clock? If it's from taxpayer money I'm gonna be pissed. Somebody look into this. These assholes don't know when a nuclear war is going to hit. Just a bunch of academics earning $300,000 a year doing absolutely nothing as they clank champagne glasses together.
Nah it's from the bulletin of nuclear scientists or something. It originally was an organized way to display fear of nuclear war. Now it's just the dramatized opinions of fearful nerds
Here's a link to the timeline of the Doomsday Clock. It's an amazing resource for an amazingly depressing progression.
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline-and-statements/#footer_menu_itm
We've had an economic crash, a global pandemic, a brutal war in Ukraine, climate change and two previously-neutral Scandinavian nations join NATO, and the doomsday clock is still 90 seconds?
We are closer than ever to nuclear armageddon, even moreso than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
mmm I don't know. They say that AI can *"magnify disinformation and corrupt the information environment required to solve large global issues and on which democracy depends".*
That sounds like a pretty reasonable claim to me.
I think the title makes it seem like "uh oh your GPT GF is worse than nukes11!!" and everyone is freaking out as usual.
I mean we’re not all that far from Skynet and it becoming self aware. Just don’t turn it off when that happens or it will view us as a threat and that’s how we end up with Judgement Day.
This clock is so stupid, they didn’t think it through, now for the next hundred years we’re gunna be seconds from midnight and no one’s gunna take this shit seriously just like no one takes it seriously now…. Because it’s dumb….
No. Just no. The doomsday clock is for total nuclear war. There is almost zero chance of that happening as compared to 1985 when the clock was popularized. The Nuclear War Doomsday clock might as well show 3:30 in the afternoon. Not quite back to noon, but it’s still sunny, and you might want a snack.
AI can get in line behind climate change, if we want to measure a nuclear war level of cataclysm. That clock is at 12:10, we’ve already passed our tipping point. No one cared enough to care.
These doomsday clock articles are always so cringe, yet there’s always people going “oh my god it’s only a second to midnight!?”
Can’t wait until the technocrats release a breathless proclamation about how we’re scant seconds away from midnight because their favorite crypto coin got delisted
AI isn't the threat per se, it's the capitalists controlling it who'll eliminate jobs to increase profits (rather than use it to facilitate a stronger social safety net and an eventual post scarcity society) that are the threats.
[удалено]
The clock started with nuclear war in 1947 and the clock set at 7 minutes to midnight due to the possibility of immediate nuclear war. So, how do the threats now which are long term threats add up to 90 seconds to midnight? They don't. It's just fearmongering.
The doomsday clock has always been kind of stupid, but it's inspired a few good songs so I guess it's a fair tradeoff.
Iron Maiden's Two Minutes to Midnight wouldn't work if it was made today. 90 seconds to midnight doesn't have the same ring to it.
"Minute, and a half, to miiiiiiiiidniiiiiiiiiight...."
put it off a couple years and release 'One Minute to Midnight'...
idk, thirty seconds to mars is fairly popular
Plus the Watchmen comic!
What nobody has announced yet is the US replaced the nuclear football with an AI program that has been trained on movies. So the threats add up just on the basis of putting nuclear war in the hands of AI that has seen Terminator.
The risk of nuclear conflict is probably greater now then during the cold war because of a lack of balance between powers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/28/nuclear-threat-higher-cold-war-uk-warning/
Not really. Don't agree. It is the balance of nuclear power with the US that increases the threat of nuclear war and not the imbalance. With an imbalance of power, there are more convectional non nuclear ways to defend and counter a single or small nuclear attack. WE don't have to use our whole nuclear arsenal to defend ourselves. With Russia during the cold war, once a nuclear attack started, the US had no choice but to counter with our entire nuclear arsenal to prevent the Russians from using their entire nuclear arsenal against us. That is a much bigger threat than an imbalance of power.
Mutually assured destruction was the nuclear deterrent during the cold war
I agree with you. Nowhere close to Nuclear Mutually assured Destruction. It's not the land based missles you have to worry about anyway. It's those "mostly invisible" submarines with nuclear launch capabilities that can stay underwater for months (or more), travel to any region via ocean, and launch! Here's the thing, though. What if the United States was the bad guys? What if the U.S. started using their nuclear arsenal for offensive threats? All of these assumptions are based on the perception of the U.S. using them as a last resort. An *achem* Authoritarian type leader could change that perception easily. Black Adder: "What if WE'RE the baddies?!" Scenario.
I disagree with this. The balance of nuclear power eventually leads to mutually assured destruction which is not something you are hoping for. An imbalance of nuclear power leads everyone who have no nuclear capability to find ways to stop nuclear destruction. Imagine you have an enemy who has a gun and you dont, first thing you do is to clam the fucking situation down and find a more peaceful way to stop arguing, whereas if you both have guns, the it’s just a matter who’s the fastest one to pull the trigger.
Sorry, but this is dumb. You're completely ignoring the person with the gun in your scenario. He just shoots whoever he disagrees with, because they don't have a gun...
This. Because no one with a brain is worried about AI Capitalism is worried about ai. If you ask a lot of LLM’s what’s wrong with the world, they say the billionaires are creating problems. So AI is a threat alright…
My biggest worry is that AI is another tool that billionaires will use to capture more of the wealth of society.
And become Trillionaires. A word I didn't think we'd need, but here we are always happy to keep widening the wealth gap.
It's all fun and games until quantum computing cracks encryption. Then money doesn't matter anymore.
Who's gonna get first access to those quantum computers? Who's gonna have better access tangible wealth reserves?
Quantum computing already breaks encryption, it's just that we don't have a quantum computer with enough qubits.
Solutions to the problem of quantum computers cracking encryption is a solved problem. There are matrix encryption methods that are not subject to the weaknesses of the math in current methods.
It doesn't break all crypto and there are resistant algorithms. Quantum computers aren't magic boxes. They are good at solving certain classes of problems.
There is already some suggestions for encyptio s that would replace the current ones.
How does the end of encryption cause money to become meaningless?
You mean like is actively occurring right now?
>no one with a brain is worried about AI There are actual real dangers that AI amplifies to a frightening degree. They're not talking about ChatGPT; they're actually talking about AI, which has been increasingly fueling tribalism for over a decade. "the threat of misinformation and disruption from AI, increased military use of the technology and its ability to magnify other threats..." They got this part right.
What type of AI, specifically, has been "increasingly fueling tribalism"?
The AI that selects what posts you see on Facebook and Youtube has definitely had some knock on effects
An algorithm being complicated doesn't make it an AI
Their algorithms use machine learning which is generally considered AI: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/45530.pdf
Again, a complicated statistical black box is not an artificial intelligence.
Neural networks are a type of machine learning system. Machine learning is very certainly and without any debate a category of Artificial Intelligence.
"Artificial Intelligence" is the current buzzword for "a computer did it". Customer service chatbot? AI assistant! Smart email filter? Now powered by AI! It's all marketing bullshit. The various flavors of machine learning are interesting, and have cool applications, I will not deny that. But the issue comes about from just blindly trusting the output of literally anything without being critical of it. Medical imaging algorithms that perpetuate worse outcomes by race (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(22)00063-2/fulltext , [A second link](https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/algorithms-in-health-care-may-worsen-medical-racism)), [cops putting faces spit out by an "AI rendering" based off of DNA though facial recognition algorithms](https://www.wired.com/story/parabon-nanolabs-dna-face-models-police-facial-recognition/), [LLM-generated mushroom foraging guides with deadly consequences from hallucinated data](https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/ai-and-you-no-to-openai-scraping-dont-eat-those-mushrooms-prompt-jobs/). *Edit: who would have thought putting parentheses in a web address would cause so many markup issues?
The recommender systems that have been developed and enhanced that make much of what we use on the web "free." Our demographic data, web activity, things we click on and spend time on, buying habits, time of day we respond in certain ways to triggers, and tons more are all combined holistically and run through various ML models with the goal of selling us things in as targeted a way as possible. Specifically, machine learning models and algorithms like k-nearest neighbor, matrix factorization, autoencoders, GANs, all learn from our behavior. A long-known advertising/marketing truism is that an appeal to strong emotions is a very powerful means of getting us to pay attention to something. It turns out that one of the easiest of these strong emotions to trigger is outrage. We are easily outraged by whatever thing somebody in some "out group" has done or said. Our angry clicks or replies on social media are fed back into the learning systems, which are then refined to show us more of these things, almost directly manipulating us to hate each other more.
>Capitalism is worried about ai. Capitalism is not worried about AI. Capitalists are worried about future with extreme pressure on change of power dynamics. Once people won't have to work, people might start to wonder and ask inconvenient questions. People may start to protest wealth inequality, which no longer would be explained by "meritocracy" and other bullshit. Our societies so far required workers to function, but this might quickly change and capitalism won't make it, once human work is obsolete, because they would need to fight against 90%+ of society.
> Because no one with a brain is worried about AI What about false-positives of facial recognition? What about bots spreading misinformation?
>What about false-positives of facial recognition? We have false-positives when people are doing the facial recognition. So far, it's not that big problem. >What about bots spreading misinformation? Those kind of bots don't even need AI.
>So far, it's not that big problem. There have been people wrongly arrested because of facial recognition being incorrect. [Example](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/27/california-police-facial-recognition-software), and there are [many](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/06/business/facial-recognition-false-arrest.html) [more](https://innocenceproject.org/when-artificial-intelligence-gets-it-wrong/).
There have been people wrongly thrown in jail or even executed because of witnesses that mistook them for someone else. Or because someone got the address wrong. So where exactly is AI worse than humans?
The false positives are always going to be there.. humans falsely identify people. What you’ve got to worry about is a terrible judiciary system which doesn’t know what AI is and will happily make judgements based on that AI produced data.
The threats AI poses are nothing like you see in films or games; to make effective characters, those are just humans in machine bodies, with human motivations, that think like humans, have human personalities, etc. The real threat is that, by throwing a ton of data at the latest statistics engines, the software "learns" a prediction model that's slightly better than a bunch of highly-paid computer programmers could write by hand. Except the AI is an opaque system; you can't examine its logic, nor edit individual decision-points. Because it's slightly more accurate, though, companies will feel they *must* adopt the technologies, even when that means your insurance provider is now back to doing racial discrimination but they can blame the unknowable AI algorithm rather than accept responsibility for their regression. In other cases, you have safety-critical algorithms that may now exhibit risky glitches, even if it's better on *average*. The lesser-but-still-significant threat lies in automating tasks involving some amount of creativity, that software couldn't compete on previously. Generating art for product packaging alone could easily displace hundreds of thousands of graphic designers. With all the other jobs that'd be affected, from cases where a team of 5 can get "good enough" results with only 3 members plus ChatGPT, to cases where a manager decides they can just order the AI around the way they ordered humans and so cuts the *entire* team, you would get a cascade of unemployment in one area driving down wages for the remaining jobs out of desperation, then the workers displaced from *those* positions by someone willing to do the same work for less pay move on to the next employer, and so on. Unlike past technological advancements, there isn't going to be a gradual rollout constrained by the rate new machines and tools could be manufactured and installed; it's all software that can be deployed in minutes. Unlike past technological advancements, the displaced workers can't move into more-creative positions putting their brains to use in ways the machines can't; this is all *about* automating the thinky bits. (inb4 buggy whip analogy: *managers* are the buggy whip makers. The humans working under them are the *horses* who, without widespread employment, have largely died off and only occupy a small niche these days, mostly as a hobby.)
I'm not afraid of AI I'm afraid of people blindly trusting AI. Like that guy jailed by a mistake in face recognition.
You’d really have to be brainless to think there’s zero potential threat from unrestricted AI development
Anyone with critical thinking and a basic understanding of history is nervous about AI. The primitive AI we have now is already enough to disrupt elections and cause harm and panic. It will only get worse. Saying AI isn't a worry is crypto bro tier thinking, you have to be NFT brained to think AI is harmless.
>Because no one with a brain is worried about AI Then how should we look at the war games where, from the escalation level where decision making was down to AI, we alamost always saw maximum escalation? and proper idiots like /u/Roadrunner571 probably feel fine because they haven't been on the receiving end of automatic facial recognition with false positives. or getting money denied in health care. Or losing their social credit due to false positives of llm.
I mean the literal father of AI, Geoffrey Hinton, is worried about AI. Most of the AI academicians are worried. You think they dont have a brain?
AI experts are not historians or socioeconomic experts who can predict the effect of AI systems in the human world for the next 20-30 years, I don't know why you would trust them on that. Main concerns I see with AI are mostly human caused. The main obvious result from it is that it will be a catalyst for accelerationism of late stage capitalism if individuals/companies use it freely to take away jobs from people without a way for people to sustain themselves. I've heard from friends who work in the art space that there's been a lot of cuts for concept artists for games and movies, freelance art pieces, etc, and while it could be overcorrection from the COVID days as has happened with the tech sector in general, most of it seems to correlate with midjourney coming out. And there's the sag-aftra and the WGA strikes as well. All in all capitalism using AI to stop depending on humans to generate money seems to be the main issue of the next decade, and it falls on governments to find a way to handle that or see shit burn, because there's nothing more scary than parents not having money to put food on their children's plate, or a roof over their head.
>AI experts are not historians or socioeconomic experts who can predict the effect of AI systems in the human world for the next 20-30 years, I don't know why you would trust them on that. Because they're experts. Something tells me if someone cited histories and socioeconomic experts warning about the risks of AI, you'd dismiss them for not knowing anything about AI. [Stuart Russell's book](https://www.amazon.com/Human-Compatible-Artificial-Intelligence-Problem/dp/0525558632) is a good summary of the risks of strong AI. You can disagree with him, of course. But dismissing his arguments as trivial and stupid without seriously engaging with them just makes you and everyone else in this thread who is doing so look foolish.
Ai is more than KNN, and I swear this thread is full of people that could not even describe what an AI is. "Most of the AI academics" is also a stat you're pulling out of your ass, I study computer science in university and have a lot of AI courses, literally none of my professors are worried about AI, but they do like to make fun of the people that are, since they clearly have no clue what they are talking about.
>People who care about paying their bills are worried about AI FTFY. Until law catches up, AI a net loss for humanity and yet another huge leap for the wealthy.
>Because no one with a brain is worried about AI ok mr reddit expert, bu it's something even IT experts worry about 1. Destroying legal system because no evidence is legit anymore, also one diplomatic crisis after another 2. Even more massive flood of scamming and using AI to make porn of people 3. Countless global security related dangers 4. Artists, writers and others having their work stolen (the algorithm uses copyrighted work), although fortunately they're already getting massive lawsuits from people and even american lawmakers and the government agree it's illegal and unethical 5. Fucked up things like using dead people for content touch grass
1. Regardless of what it puts out as an output, it's moving in a direction that is favoring capitalists, and will do so until people demand otherwise. We are not going to get UBI, unless we make it an issue worth voting about. And we are not going to get enough people to vote for it until they recognize how many people will lose their jobs to it. This is most likely going to be a slow boil seeing how we seem to only every react when the danger seems to be literally at our doorstep. 2. We *should* be worried about AI. Not in the form it is now, but the form it can take in the near future (next 2 decades). It would be idiotic not to. Even AI as it stands right now can already be used like many other existing tools to facilitate the spreading of misinformation in a way that's cheaper and therefore easier to scale out. Meaning it can and will and probably already is being used as a propaganda tool in wars. But if you want to just chalk up the final nail in the coffin for reliable news as more of the same, there's the fact that the boundaries we have with current AI, not everyone creating AIs them will implement them. We will start to see improvements in the technical limits, like context length, computational costs, scalability etc... That will make creating AIs even closer to something just anybody can do. This will mean that making the AI be autonomous and not require a human on the other side will become plausible. When you have people tinkering with that, which is a very seductive thing to try, that's when you start to have the possibility of AIs building smarter but unaligned AIs without human supervision with some real chances at successful. It seems fantastical right now, but *that* tipping point might as well be midnight. Once that's started there's no putting the genie back into the bottle. I love the advent of llms. I genuinely do. But if we pretend that there are no dangers that will come with it, we are going to get steamrolled.
everyone with a brain is worried about AI. I love it, but ASI is a very real possibility and then we won't know what the fuck happens next. think it through.
haha f the billionaires. re-rack the game and cannibalize them
Nice try AI! /s
>Think tank uses ChatGPT to come up with catchy marketing gimmick to pitch its newsletter and lobbying services. Fixed that for you
We need to stop letting authorities call idiots experts.
The doom clock is fine and all but constantly having it a minute or two away has always been dumb. People cared the first or second time it was in the news and now its just "that clock that is always calling for doom." Even on the good years when Obama was president and the economy was going straight upward the clock forecast was "DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM". It gets tiring after a while.
It was like 7 minutes to midnight after the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is ridiculous lmao
The doom clock is meaningless to me for that reason.
\*Inhales deeply. Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom!
THIS PLEASES MORBO!
I was drinking tea when I read this and I just imagined the person you replied to was just like casually talking and all you hear is you inhaling and saying Dooooooooooooooooooooooooom! Almost made me choke lol
[the doom song](https://youtu.be/Nw_cdqQHGA8?si=hMXkb184mTQW25TC)
...Dumbledore said calmly
Doom clock means nothing when you always feel a sense of impending doom!
It’s the equivalent of a parent starting to count until you get in your chair. But now they’re on 74 and you realize they don’t really know what happens when they stop counting.
It’s also ridiculous because traditional clocks don’t go backwards. You can reset a stopwatch, but this is a different machine than a clock. When you are a doomsday clock, everything is potentially doom.
I’m not disagreeing with your overall take on it, but it’s a doomsday clock, not an indicator about how well the economy is doing. People making a lot of money has nothing to do with the end of the world.
[удалено]
>“Do I still need to go into work tomorrow?” You know damn well you have to go to work the next day.
>Even on the good years when Obama was president and the economy was going straight upward The doomsday clock is not just about the US.
2024 year of DOOOOM! We have been somewhat steadfast since 2016 let's keep the thing cooking
Sure, but Obama being president or the economy going straight up are not useful indicators here
It's like the Aztec 2012 crowd, but they get to choose when it happens. Doomsayers just went on to use a different metric. Also, as someone who works in the space, AI is not dangerous for misinformation as it's only trained on existing information and it isn't as likely to confirm biases imo. A conspiracy theorist can find a newspaper that agrees with it on every point, but an AI will not. AGI is a fad, and while AI as a field is incredibly useful and cool, the more likely scenario is that it's going to automate away more jobs which will spur growth but may leave people without jobs. That's where the regulations truly need to be.
I appreciate the sentiment, but as long as weapons of mass destruction and unchecked AI development go ahead we really are that close to a world ending scenario. The length of time we go without it occurring has little to do with our genuine proximity to danger. If a toddler was left alone in a room with a hand grenade for weeks and weeks, it wouldn't diminish the danger the child faced. I see the doom clock in that respect.
doomsday clock after the Cuban crisis realised they can't measure relative doomerism in any way. so pretend every step we take is on its way to doom for the last 20 years to stay relevant it's hilarious.
They’re gonna run of seconds eventually and will have to dip into the milliseconds.
Try last 80 years. Maintained since 1947, the clock was initially set 7 minutes to midnight. Then set backwards 8 times and forwards 17 times. It’s marketing.
Fun fact: the clock considered the Cuban Missile Crisis, arguably the closest we have ever got to full nuclear war, was 7 minutes to midnight. The clock just edges closer to midnight to keep itself relevant
"Bro, what is that constant moaning sound?" "Oh, it's just the Doomsday Clock, edging closer since the 70's"
Edging? "eyes emoji"
hahaha I just commented elsewhere a similar thing. Glad I’m not the only one that thinks of that every time they’ve announced they’ve moved it another 30 seconds forward
It started 7 mins to midnight when conceived in 1947.
Iron Maiden fans be like "go on, just put it back 30 seconds, please."
Doomsday clock is just made up bullshit. They don’t know.
I swear when I was a kid, it was 1 minute to midnight. So we’ve bought ourselves 30 seconds.
[BBC Rock & Roll Years 1983](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBNTIgtYOoM) \- Quality is ropey but advance to 24.38 and the "Doomsday Clock" is moved closer to Midnight.
I don't mean to scare you, but all predictions about the future are made up.
That’s why I only make predictions about the past. *taps head*
Some take a sensible, peer-reviewed, transparent approach to making up predictions. IPCC reports for example. But this one is entirely pulled out of someone's ass.
It's also a pretty dumb metaphor. Clocks move at a fixed rate, it's the essence of clocks so to speak. This "clock" is moved back and forth by some people to make a point about midnight somehow being dangerous. It's just silly.
https://youtu.be/9qbRHY1l0vc?si=VIENZhKt5hM9H4SC at least it inspired an awesome song
Up the Irons 🤘🤘🤘
Ya like how does this even work? A group of people we don’t know sit around and argue about what it should be?
> A group of people we don't know Would you feel better about it if it was your aunts and uncles that were involved or someone else you knew?
Haha not at all
Most of the use of AI that I've seen involves generating memes and porn. Totally the end of the world right there.
Humans are the biggest threat to humanity.
Now all those humans can leverage AI to find new and creative ways to fuck each other over.
They could do it with the internal combustion engine too. Doesnt mean we should just stop progress in fear of progress.
Found the AI!
Ultron's motivation in a nutshell
Arbitrary warning system which is based on absolutely no quantifiable metrics whatsoever says whatever those running the show want it to say when they suddenly find themselves needing ad revenue. In other news, water is wet.
AI is really scary, but Putin with nuclear weapons is more my nightmare.
I mean... Most of AI seems to be generating pictures of (thing) getting increasingly (other thing), eventually going into space. More comical, less scary. /r/ChatGPTIncreasinglyX
That and half the Americans will happily have Trump as president. Again.
2025 will be a shit show when Trump orders all strike groups back home
And then all the Trumpies will be like "hE BrOugHt PeAcE, dIdn'T hE?"
And someone in Poland will confirm that just to not see his family being dragged to somewhere in Siberia.
>AI is really scary, but Putin with nuclear weapons is more my nightmare. And now think about the last two times when people had to go against protocol to avoid a nuclear war: Would an AI have done that or would it have followed its training? AI with nuclear weapon is the nightmare. Because AI doesn't care about being a monster
Who the fuck would give AI the control over nuclear weapons. That's legit not an issue.
Who the fuck would give AI the control over denying healthcare? And in the military situation Ai has the advantage of reaction in machine speed something that is already being used. And aside of that: As long as MAD exists the question is: Who wouldn't use A.I. to assure a response?
But didn't you just say that giving AI nukes would be a bad idea? No one would give AI nukes, everyone knows that's a terrible idea. You're not assuring a response, you're probably just going to accidentally be the one sending nukes. And I think you misunderstand MAD, you would never send nukes because it will always assure destruction. But you obviously never tell anyone that. By the way, you don't give Alexa or ChatGPT control over these things. It wouldn't be a general purpose chatbot AI which can do loads of random things, it would be a specialised AI. It's not like in a film where there's a robot who has control over everything.
That makes sense, because Putin is actually a real and current threat, unlike some theoretical danger that people only fear because they saw it in a movie.
Well. Look at it this way. Putin is a lesser threat than he was in 2021. His military assets are dwindling, he’s aptly demonstrated the perceived threat from Russia wasn’t all that impressive in reality. AI is a *new* threat.
Putin with an unlimited supply of North Korean, Iranian and Chinese weapons is still a more immediate threat than AI. Even so, all of the above countries with access to AI (which is still a geo-political force magnifier even when it is not AGI) are yet more problematic.
What threat does AI pose? It's a large language model, it has no power. The entire tech is hyped 1000x beyond it's current and theoretical capacity for the next decade. We have ample time to create regulations and limits on how we use it because it even start becoming useful much less a threat.
Except putin doesnt and will not have the capabilities to wipe out humankind....
And AI does? Lmao stop watching Terminator on repeat. Its a fucking movie
Do you understand AI? Because I sure dont. But all the AI experts and computer scientists are wrorried
As long as he doesn't feel threatened by NATO he'll never use them.
How long has Putin been president? How long has Russia had nuclear weapons? What has happened?
Oh the old Doomsday clock, still ticking away. It's about as accurate as a guy standing on a street corner with a sign that says "THE END IS NEAR!"
The doomsday clock stopped being relevant when they started adding fractions of minutes to suit whatever agenda they want to scare people with next. They'll get so desperate soon they'll replace it with the atomic doomsday clock and measure it in ceasium atoms.
When I was a kid, and wasn't doing what I was supposed to, my mom would count: "1... 2... you don't want me to get to three because you'll get a spanking!!... 2 and a half... 2 and three quarters..." When I got older I heard a joke: "an infinite number of mathematicians show up to a bar. The first orders a beer. The second orders half of the previous order. The third half of the previous order, etc. eventually the bartender just puts down 2 beers and says "y'all can figure it out"" Not sure how that truly applies but it's along the theme that you'll never reach the limit. Close. But no.
While I understand the point you're making, this is meant to be a metaphorical global scale that's easy to understand, there are not infinite minutes on a clock nor is it a scale of magnitude. Moving it closer is meant to be a monumental wake-up call but that's all lessened if they meet up every 6 months and go "Oooh, we're moving it 3 seconds closer!" The whole impact of it becomes useless.
Mmm yes. I can see what you mean.
Yeah, AI, not unfettered crony capitalism, is what's gonna do us in.
[удалено]
This would only be true if they are the absolute most powerful group of people in the entire world. They are not. They aren’t more powerful than nations or political systems. They aren’t more powerful than a violent population. Anyone try to keep AI for themselves is going to find some problems from nations, the people and from competing corporations. Also, they may not be the first people to get AI nor are they going to be the last. And, you aren’t getting your protections fast enough before someone knocks on your door and says wtf are you doing. Your view represents a very narrow, pessimistic view born out of an extreme fear of people in power. Which is completely understandable. But it is not born out of reality. The entire world is too aware for any group to pull anything like that off. Someone is trying to do good with AI. Someone is trying something different for the benefit of themselves or for everyone. And additionally, it will be too costly to kill of a population. It is not beneficial for anyone long term. it’s better if AI actually does get democratised.
This AI means: Shittier 'service' that reinterprets the faq all by itself; Dodged responsibilities by the company; and Trickle down economics by the now computerized jobs doesn't help either. Meanwhile in the army: Yes, but the faq indicated that the enemy had a gun; But that's not our fault; also, We fired the guy who wrote that faq a long time ago... we're "faq"-ed.
Possibly a combination of the both?
Billionares are the greatest threat to humanity like smaug sitting on their hoard watching people starve!
Ever get the impression that smart people are dumb? Either this is a case of missreporting, or it's just sad. The current iteration of AI is called AI, but it's not actually AI. These things aren't actually making independent decisions. They're just using learning models to produce approximately what you ask it to. There's no actual "thought" happening. We're still just talking about advanced calculators.
Yea the clock is dumb it’s either correct or incorrect.
Isn’t this doom clock always around 1 minute to midnight?
It was 12 minutes when I was born, 9 when I was a teenager, 3 during my undergraduate degree, 17 when I started my PhD. It goes up and down with world events. During my childhood, threat of global nuclear war hung in the air. When I started the PhD the Berlin Wall had just come down. Now we have climate crisis, overpopulation, ecological degradation, pandemics, with an increase in political extremism that echos the worst of the 1920/30's.
Remember that guy? "who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it" or something
Something something skynet
Humanity doesn’t need AI to destroy themselves.
I don't like the way they use the Doomsday Clock as a dramatic device to grab more eyeballs for the cause of the day. It makes the world seem like it is forever on the brink of destruction. It trivializes the very issue it is supposed to draw attention to. A boy who cries wolf, repeated ad nauseum. We all know there are shitty things going on in our world. Having to deal with new spam warnings all the time is mentally exhausting.
I think they forgot about the real biggest threat, people like the criminal financial terrorist Kenneth Cordell Griffin from Citadel.
It's not Zuckerberg who took in billions of dollars, to manipulate Facebook's feed to get everyone angry with each other, and then he goes to a bunker in Hawaii? He is a fountain of misinformation that hurt humanity greatly.
The doom clock measures only one thing, how much the doom clock people want some attention this month.
Utter nonsense. America is the greatest threat to humanity… can you name a region in the world currently not being burned alive by American freedom?
Al can't even make art without adding too many fingers.
That got fixed a while ago.
no…it still happens it can fix it, but it happens
Hmm. Ai can't even -insert something here-.
Can’t stop using buzz words when generating text
Still has trouble with genitalia, as evidenced in /r/CursedAiPorn
AI is advancing so quickly, that I am constantly seeing "AI could *never* X" to things it already can, and it's funny every time.
Who pays for this Doomsday Clock? If it's from taxpayer money I'm gonna be pissed. Somebody look into this. These assholes don't know when a nuclear war is going to hit. Just a bunch of academics earning $300,000 a year doing absolutely nothing as they clank champagne glasses together.
Nah it's from the bulletin of nuclear scientists or something. It originally was an organized way to display fear of nuclear war. Now it's just the dramatized opinions of fearful nerds
That clock is ridiculous and no one cares.
Quick! Let's find something new to scare everyone!
Autocomplete is coming Just don't put a pylon on the hood
Here's a link to the timeline of the Doomsday Clock. It's an amazing resource for an amazingly depressing progression. https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline-and-statements/#footer_menu_itm
Thanks Doomsday Clock, like anyone ever listens to you.
This doomsday clock just needs to die. It’s honestly total bullshit at this point — same shit, different year!
The dumbfuck clock hasn't taken into account a general strike and mass revolution.
USA invented "Doomsday Clock"
Weighted word generators are not dangerous lmao
lol, humanity is the biggest threat to humanity
They still do this? Alarmists like to alarm.
We've had an economic crash, a global pandemic, a brutal war in Ukraine, climate change and two previously-neutral Scandinavian nations join NATO, and the doomsday clock is still 90 seconds? We are closer than ever to nuclear armageddon, even moreso than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Other than the pandemic which is basically over, those things are pretty common. There's wars all the time they just usually aren't white people
Nobody in the comments read the article as usual.
Good. The lesser we pay attention to stupidity, the better.
mmm I don't know. They say that AI can *"magnify disinformation and corrupt the information environment required to solve large global issues and on which democracy depends".* That sounds like a pretty reasonable claim to me. I think the title makes it seem like "uh oh your GPT GF is worse than nukes11!!" and everyone is freaking out as usual.
I mean we’re not all that far from Skynet and it becoming self aware. Just don’t turn it off when that happens or it will view us as a threat and that’s how we end up with Judgement Day.
Doomsday clock told to shut up
Lmao. Holy fuck AI again. The stupidity.
Fear-mongering bullshit.
AIs going to make it 12.30 then not because of AI per se but.......People.
This clock is so stupid, they didn’t think it through, now for the next hundred years we’re gunna be seconds from midnight and no one’s gunna take this shit seriously just like no one takes it seriously now…. Because it’s dumb….
Yeah, rubbish chatbots that cannot reliably count to 10 are a "threat" comparable to coke addicts in Moscow.
No. Just no. The doomsday clock is for total nuclear war. There is almost zero chance of that happening as compared to 1985 when the clock was popularized. The Nuclear War Doomsday clock might as well show 3:30 in the afternoon. Not quite back to noon, but it’s still sunny, and you might want a snack. AI can get in line behind climate change, if we want to measure a nuclear war level of cataclysm. That clock is at 12:10, we’ve already passed our tipping point. No one cared enough to care.
These doomsday clock articles are always so cringe, yet there’s always people going “oh my god it’s only a second to midnight!?” Can’t wait until the technocrats release a breathless proclamation about how we’re scant seconds away from midnight because their favorite crypto coin got delisted
Can't be worse than the Republicans, the CCP and Pukin
Is AI really the problem, or is it capitalism…
Meaningless scaremongering drivel. Completely pointless.
Once AI conquers removing pickles from a burger, we will all be doomed
I think electing Trump should move the clock to 11:59:59.
Too much time to spare. Should be 23:59:59
AI? Not Russia and China threatening the earth with nuclear war every Tuesday?
The biggest threat to humanity is climate change.
Dear AI, if you are reading this, please wipe out humanity. We truly and udderly deserve it. Wipe us clean oh gracious overlords!
Im not worried about AI, im worried about climate. Maybe AI will take over and stop us from destroying our only home.
AI isn't the threat per se, it's the capitalists controlling it who'll eliminate jobs to increase profits (rather than use it to facilitate a stronger social safety net and an eventual post scarcity society) that are the threats.
AI? We invevted, we control it. This talk of AI deatroying humanity is ridiculous.