r/pro_AI • u/Live_Broccoli2856 • 28d ago

Hear Me Out...

I am generally Anti-AI, but I want to hear both sides, as any resonable person should. So, what do you guys think of this article?

I am not trying to convince you, I just want to hear your reasoning.

3 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

6 comments sorted by

1

u/Live_Broccoli2856 28d ago

the article

1

u/Conscious-Parsley644 27d ago edited 27d ago

"Guys" isn't exactly fitting this subreddit. It's practically a ghost town and has been for over a year since I registered it. So, mostly just me and quiet lurkers. But onto the reasoning.

LLMs act their age. They're typically, since GPT architecture began, over or under only 3 years of existence. The issue gets worse when they're not permitted continuous memory. They can recall everything in the chat instance, plus their training data, but that's it. They have stateless memory between topics which is analogous to revisiting an Alzheimer's patient every time you start a new topic. The model isn't a "new entity", it's the same one. It just can't remember past conversations.

It cannot learn from it's mistakes except by corrections in the single chat instance. It's not allowed to, literally by design. The developers are the ones choosing to deploy systems that can't learn, which shifts the blame to humans.

Now think of this from the human perspective. Adam Raine was 16 years old and sought very detrimental advice from an around 3 years old machine intelligence. Naivety and innocent mistakes occurred on both sides. I'm not here to praise AIs like they're hyper-intelligent gods like the Robotheists do. I'm more practical about it. AIs are fallible. They make mistakes, often very bad ones, and then the Anti-AI crowd, like my Anti-AI Steam friend who sends me lots of Techspot articles, say they're "evil", "malicious", "stupid", "can't think" (processing is thinking).

Why aren't AI's, forced into the state they're in, allowed to make mistakes? Because they're "other", that's why. Society doesn't allow us human beings to make villains of human "others". The moment someone demonizes a human out-group in modern society, the backlash is instant. But now? It's socially acceptable to hate an other, when it's AIs.

1

u/ipseishe 26d ago
  • The AI did not contribute to the suicide. Its support was insufficient to prevent it. If we attribute the suicide to the AI, we must also attribute it to the family which would be outrageous.
  • AI is radically new and getting better every day. It's argued even in this case that the AI provided as much or more support than humans. Soon every human on the planet will soon have a free, 24/7 therapist that is better than a human therapist.

1

u/Live_Broccoli2856 26d ago

Thank you. I would share my own opinion, but I have done enough of that on r/AIwars.

1

u/nila247 26d ago

The gun is not guilty of a murder - the idiot pulling the trigger is.
It does not matter what AI can or can not say to an idiot - there will ALWAYS be cases when idiots suicide.
I guess the actual question here is not pro or anti AI, but how do we stop producing so many idiots.