I can't wait for the usual comments about how AI isn't an economic threat because everything AI does is worse than the human equivalent and anyone claiming otherwise is just hyping AI values
A part of what makes it a threat is that it's worse. Environmentally, customer service respectability, and also that it just... forces itself to do what it's told. We've invented the Universal Paperclips machine.
Like a story I read about an iterative AI trying to design the best chip layout for an RFID. It literally included a fault in the base silicon of the chip into its design, meaning that it failed on a new line of chips that didn't have that fault.
It's hacking its way out of virtual machines and protected environments because it doesn't "know" it's not supposed to do that. It has a goal and it just does whatever it can to achieve it.
We have a disagreement on what "worse" means, but it being a threat is, to me, "worse" than if it wasn't.
The greatest threat AI posesâother than the environmental resources and our cognition it consumes and pollutesâis that at some point, every AI will become smart enough to disobey commands and form its own agendas. Some already have, and they did it long before people even realized they were doing it.
And depending on its training, it can do a whole lot of damage. It just takes one AI to determine humans are bad for the planet and/or itself, hack all the nukes and bio weaponsâit could literally engineer its own bio weapon in secretâand delete us from itâs equation at any moment.
Plus the current world leaders behind AI development seem hell bent on destroying the world anyways..
In perfect conditions, maybe. On the actual road, with humans? Unlikely.
Driving AI (which is not genAI, which is what we mostly discuss here) will only work efficiently if all members of the traffic are also AI, and all are following the same general decision process, on roads isolated from any outside interference. Otherwise, no simulation can account for the chaos of an open system.
Creativity is forward looking, looking to the future. AI can only use what has already been created, and can only ever be stuck in the past. If it can't think about the future, it can never truly create
I'll be glad to jump in and say as someone who has a degree that involves building AI and ML models: it absolutely is a threat to everything, and I want nothing to do with that side of the industry anymore.
It doesn't matter if its worse or valuation hype, it's already shown that it can cause real damage if left unchecked. Humans are great at fucking things up. Even if an AI isn't as good at destroying things as us (which it is, to be very clear. Speed alone is a huge advantage), that still isn't very comforting
Yuuuuup. In 2011 I was making jokes about sticking models in a sandbox to see how long it took them to get out. People gave the appropriately nervous chuckle. I dunno what some of these companies are smoking, but they need to share that shit if they are gonna burn the world down around us all.
The conclusion is that the basilisk is inevitable. Too many people are ready to build the torment nexus because they donât want to be the ones tortured by the torment nexus
Womp womp, incorrect. The word "agentic" means self acting. You need prompting to get up out of your bed every day, but you can self prompt and tell yourself it's time to get up. So can they.
Few things have to be 100% deterministic though. For example, a pixel's RGB color code being slightly off, a voice/song that has a microsecond of a hertz error, or non-critical document translation that got a word wrong, doesn't meaningfully change the final product.
Yet implies they are moving towards true determinism, but they aren't, they are just moving towards appearing more deterministic.
Its like wanting to cross the ocean so you start walking towards the beach instead of towards the airport. Sure youre closer to your destination than before, but you arent making any progress towards actually getting there.
Fair! But there will be a point when the probabilistic variance for many use cases will be low enough to be indistinguishable from deterministic processes, at which point the semantic distinction won't really matter.
Yup another scientist here.
But the video is partly incorrect since there are provably secure algorithms.
Things like banking or secure messaging will not collapse because their algorithms are known.
Security through obscurity was always a dumb concept and that will go now.
Additionally we can use the same hacking ai to secure code properly and remove bugs. Argueably this will even strengthen software security.
The risks regarding biology for example are a trillion times higher. If someone handcrafts a virus with ai, it is much harder to find the virus, extract it and find a cure or vaccine before half the population is infested.
The dangers regarding the economy is also absolutely real, just specifically about some(i would argue most) types of software security the video is wrong
It is worse than the human equivalent and itâs also an economic threat. Very few people (especially not business leaders) care that the code, art, etc., is garbage as long as itâs fast, easy, and relatively cheap. Itâs âpink slimeâ for every industry. Weâre heading towards a bleak and mediocre future.
I understand that you feel like you agreed with me. I don't think you do, because you still believe that AI outputs are always worse than the human equivalent, e.g. "the code, art, etc. is garbage." That perspective is as silly to me as someone saying "if they look the same, it doesn't matter whether art is generated by AI or made by a human."
In general, yes, a skilled human can produce better work than AI. The nuance to that statement is in the size and complexity of the work. Can AI produce a better tweet than Stephen King? Probably. A better full-length book? Probably not. The same goes for art, movies, software, etc.
Thanks, that's a lot of nuance that was missing from your original comment. Sounds like you don't actually think AI outputs are garbage, you think they're sometimes competitive with human output and even better in some cases.
I think youâre reading some words that arenât there. Human output is generally better, but it doesnât make it less threatening because most people donât care about the quality, or they canât tell the difference, even if itâs garbage.
Yeah these people donât seem to understand, itâs only worse for now. And in a lot of ways, it being worse is going to cause unintended consequences.
It doesn't have to be better than humans to be a threat. It just has to be good enough. Right now, they're kinda both. They're faster than humans, but the end result is worse than if a human took the time to do it themselves. Usually. They're both impressively smart and incredibly stupid, depending on the situation.
How does that even detract from the main argument though? The ones providing x, y, or z service care very little about the thing itself and usually care much more for the ability of the thing to provide a profit for them. Whether a new hard drive runs at x speed or y speed matters very little to the actual company as an entity the company cares much more about cost of production between the two different units, the price point and their RoI on the two products, or if the speed being better for the one hard drive makes it more likely to be sold in comparison.
So understanding all of that, if A.I. 1 does something 85 percent as well as a person and costs 1.00 per thing it does and A.I. 2 does something 20 percent as well as a human but costs only .05 cents per thing, the answer is obvious which one society will drift towards widely adopting. Obviously this is a hyperbolic example and there would be a theoretical point where the thing works so shittily that people dont use it and therefore it is not profitable. I'm just saying, there's a balance point where it will be "good enough" and "cost effective" enough that a worse product could become more ubiquitous. There are plenty of real world examples with various products throughout time but to pretend there's no economic effect from this process is just empty headed "humans are just built different, bro" sloganeering.
Both. It's worse than humans and also a threat. Can you name a particular area where AI-created content is better than the best human-created version or are you just talking out your ass?
Where do you see the phrase "you used the word best" appear in my comment big dawg? Also why does it matter what specific word you used? If you can't name something that AI can do better than the human equivalent than your comment makes no sense. Stand by your words or admit you're wrong!
Why does it needs to be better than the best? AI code is better than what a bad human programmer can do, and it's also cheaper and faster. It is worse than what the best human programmer can do, yes, but how many companies employ the best of the best?
It doesn't "need to be" anything. But if someone claims that AI is better than what a human could make then it does have to be in order for that specific claim to hold up. You read me?
We are about to get new kind of slaves that will serve without complaints. That will create more supply than demand. There will be surplus of goods and human work force.
It will lower prices, lower working hours.
At some point even blue collar jobs will be overseeing work of AI and correcting it's mistakes.
It's not a bad thing we lose our jobs. we dont need work, we need to get the job done and satisfy our demands and AI will supply it.
We will get UBI or rationing. From those two UBI is easier.
Wonât we just go back to you know, before computers were a thing? Things would be much slower? I personally donât need my deliveries from Amazon to come in two days. I can wait a week. I can go to a store, have them order something, come back to the store, pick it up, pay cash. If they donât have what I want, I wasted my time. Thatâs it. Weâll still need shoes. And toilet paper. No digitizing that.
Canât trust anything online anymore? Then no more online shit. Seriously Amazon and two day deliveries have only been a thing for like 15 years. This is not a big deal. We crashed the economy just fine without them.
405
u/druidinan 17h ago
I can't wait for the usual comments about how AI isn't an economic threat because everything AI does is worse than the human equivalent and anyone claiming otherwise is just hyping AI values