You're right that a catastrophe tends to motivate major change but it can happen without that (e.g., the abolition of slavery) and in any case it helps to have the groundwork in place so that when disaster strikes it's immediately clear what direction to take.
AI doesn't have to include noise (e.g., when playing chess) but even if it does why does that matter? Human activity is much more noisy (unpredictable and thus error prone) than a machine can be.
AI dangers are already real. We have robot police dogs and AI piloted drones killing people. Skilled people have already lost their jobs to it and governments are using it to track everyone's movements, accuse people of crimes and scoop up their biometric data for their digital ID's. Most internet traffic is from scraping bots and a lot of online content and social media accounts are faked by AI. People are already becoming dependent on and addicted to AI's and a few have turned psychotic. I wouldn't underestimate the ability for things to get worse real fast.
AI doesn't have to include noise (e.g., when playing chess) but even if it does why does that matter?
LLMs are horrible at playing chess. Deep Blue and other chess "AIs" are fixed algorithmic programs that have little similarity to what we now know as AI/machine learning, which is based on context/statistics only.
Human activity is much more noisy (unpredictable and thus error prone) than a machine can be.
Human errors are more predictable and they can also be held accountable. A human doing calculus will not suddenly decide that 2*2=8. An LLM can and does.
People are already becoming dependent on and addicted to AI's and a few have turned psychotic. I wouldn't underestimate the ability for things to get worse real fast.
I agree they can get a lot worse, but probably not in the ways that people are predicting.
What do you disagree with?
You're right that a catastrophe tends to motivate major change but it can happen without that (e.g., the abolition of slavery) and in any case it helps to have the groundwork in place so that when disaster strikes it's immediately clear what direction to take.
I don't think AI will be accurate enough to supplant 90% of human activity as by its nature it includes statistical noise.
That's a fair point, but the dangers of AI will have to become more real than theoretical (i.e. whipped slaves) for this to happen.
AI doesn't have to include noise (e.g., when playing chess) but even if it does why does that matter? Human activity is much more noisy (unpredictable and thus error prone) than a machine can be.
AI dangers are already real. We have robot police dogs and AI piloted drones killing people. Skilled people have already lost their jobs to it and governments are using it to track everyone's movements, accuse people of crimes and scoop up their biometric data for their digital ID's. Most internet traffic is from scraping bots and a lot of online content and social media accounts are faked by AI. People are already becoming dependent on and addicted to AI's and a few have turned psychotic. I wouldn't underestimate the ability for things to get worse real fast.
LLMs are horrible at playing chess. Deep Blue and other chess "AIs" are fixed algorithmic programs that have little similarity to what we now know as AI/machine learning, which is based on context/statistics only.
Human errors are more predictable and they can also be held accountable. A human doing calculus will not suddenly decide that 2*2=8. An LLM can and does.
I agree they can get a lot worse, but probably not in the ways that people are predicting.
I wasn't talking about LLM's but AI's in general. There's no requirement for AI's to be stochastic or stochastic in a totally random way.
A good math AI wouldn't decide 2*2=8 either. A human being could mistakenly use an 8 however.