The majority of U.S. adults don’t believe the benefits of artificial intelligence outweigh the risks, according to a new Mitre-Harris Poll released Tuesday.
The majority of U.S. adults don’t understand the technology well enough to make an informed decision on the matter.
To be fair, even if you understand the tech it’s kinda hard to see how it would benefit the average worker as opposed to CEOs and shareholders who will use it as a cost reduction method to make more money. Most of them will be laid off because of AI so obviously it’s of no benefit to them.
Just spitballing here, and this may be a bit of pie-in-the-sky thinking, but ultimately I think this is what might push the US into socialized healthcare and/or UBI. Increasing automation won’t reduce population- and as more workers are out of work due to automation, they’ll have more time and motivation to do things like protest.
The US economy literally depends on 3-4% of the workforce being so desperate for work that they’ll take any job, regardless of how awful the pay is. They said this during the recent labor shortage, citing how this is used to keep wages down and how it’s a “bad thing” that almost 100% of the workforce was employed because it meant people could pick and choose rather than just take the first offer they get, thus causing wages to increase.
Poverty and homelessness are a feature, not a bug.
Yes, but for capitalism it’s a delicate balance- too many job openings gives labor more power, but too few job openings gives people reason to challenge the status quo. That 3-4% may be enough for the capitalists, but what happens when 15-20% of your workforce are unemployed because of automation? That’s when civil unrest happens.
Remember that the most progressive Presidential administration in US history, FDR, happened right after the gilded age and roaring 20’s crashed the economy. When 25% of Americans were out of work during the Great Depression, social programs suddenly looked much more preferable than food riots. And the wealth disparity now is even greater, relatively, than it was back then.
Seems more likely that they’ll have more time not in the sense of having easier jobs but by being laid off and having to fight for their livelihood. In the corporate-driven society that we live today, it’s unlikely that the benefits of new advancements will be spontaneously shared.
Seems more likely that they’ll have more time not in the sense of having easier jobs but by being laid off and having to fight for their livelihood.
This is exactly what I meant.
People who have to fight for subsistence won’t easily revolt, because they’re too busy trying to survive.
People who are unemployed have nothing to lose by not revolting. And the more automation there is, the more unemployed people there will be.
So we see it the same way, but I don’t feel much optimistic about it because it’s going to get much worse before it might get better. All the suffering and struggle that it will take to reform society will be ugly.
Yes, I think it will get worse before it gets better. As long as there is a sociopathic desire to hoard wealth, and no fucks given to our fellow humans, this is how it will be. Capitalism causes these issues, and so capitalism can’t fix them.
Informed or not, they aren’t wrong. If there is an iota that something can be misused, it will be. Human nature. AI will be used against everyone. It’s potentially for good is equally as strong as its potential for evil.
But imagine this. You get laid off. At that moment, bots are contacting your bank, LinkedIn, and most of the financial lenders about the incident. Your credit is flagged as your income has dropped significantly. Your bank seizes the opportunity and jacks up your mortgage rates. Lenders are also making use of the opportunity to seize back their merchandise as you’ll likely not be able to make payments and they know it.
Just one likely incident when big brother knows all and can connect the dots using raw compute power.
Having every little secret parcelled over the internet because we live in the digital age is not something humanity needs.
I’m actually stunned that even here, among the tech nerds, you all still don’t realize how much digital espionage is being done on the daily. AI will only serve to help those in power grow bigger.
But imagine this. You get laid off. At that moment, bots are contacting your bank, LinkedIn, and most of the financial lenders about the incident. Your credit is flagged as your income has dropped significantly. Your bank seizes the opportunity and jacks up your mortgage rates. Lenders are also making use of the opportunity to seize back their merchandise as you’ll likely not be able to make payments and they know it.
None of this requires “AI.” At most AI is a tool to make this more efficient. But then you’re arguing about a tool and not the problem behavior of people.
If you look at the poll, the concerns raised are all valid. AI will most likely be used to automate cyberattacks, identity theft, and to spread misinformation. I think the benefits of the technology outweigh the risks, but these issues are very real possibilities.
But our elected officials like McConnell, feinstein, Sanders, Romney, manchin, Blumenthal, Marley have us covered.
They are up to speed on the times and know exactly what our generations challenges are. I trust them to put forward meaningful legislation that captures a nuanced understanding that will protect the interests of the American people while positioning the US as a world leader on these matters.
To be fair, this includes those, who should regulate tech companies. I’d say that people should be concerned.
Most of the U.S. adults also don’t understand what AI is in the slightest. What do the opinions of people who are not in the slightest educated on the matter affect lol.
You don’t have to understand how an atomic bomb works to know it’s dangerous
Prime example. Atomic bombs are dangerous and they seem like a bad thing. But then you realize that, counter to our intuition, nuclear weapons have created peace and security in the world.
No country with nukes has been invaded. No world wars have happened since the invention of nukes. Countries with nukes don’t fight each other directly.
Ukraine had nukes, gave them up, promptly invaded by Russia.
Things that seem dangerous aren’t always dangerous. Things that seem safe aren’t always safe. More often though, technology has good sides and bad sides. AI does and will continue to have pros and cons.
Atomic bomb are also dangerous because if someone end up launching one by mistake, all hell is gonna break loose. This has almost happened multiple times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls
We’ve just been lucky so far.
And then there are questionable state leaders who may even use them willingly. Like Putin, or Kim, maybe even Trump.
…and the development and use of nuclear power has been one of the most important developments in civil infrastructure in the last century.
Nuclear isn’t categorically free from the potential to harm, but it can also do a whole hell of a lot for humanity if used the right way. We understand it enough to know how to use it carefully and safely in civil applications.
We’ll probably get to the same place with ML… eventually. Right now, everyone’s just throwing tons of random problems at it to see what sticks, which is not what one could call responsible use - particularly when outputs are used in a widespread sense in production environments.
Alright, when the AI takes my job and I can’t feed my family while the billionaires add another digit to their net worth I’ll consider the pros.
There’s about 0% chance we reform society for AI, it will just funnel more wealth to the rich. People claim it will open new jobs but I don’t see it.
People have had the same concerns about automation since basically forever. Automation isn’t the problem. The people who use automation to perpetuate the systems that work against us will continue to find creative ways to exploit us with or without AI. Those people and those systems-- they are the problem. And believe it or not, that problem is imminently solvable.
It’s fair to compare but you can’t dismiss concerns based on that.
Past automation often removed duplicate or superfluous work type things, AI removes thought work. It’s a fundamentally different kind of automation than we’ve seen before.
It will make many things cheaper to do and easier to start some businesses, but it will also decimate workers. It’s also not something that’s generally available to lower classes to wield yet.
It’s here but I don’t have to be optimistic.
I fully agree with everything you said. My point is more that if we look at AI as the culprit, we’re missing the point. If I may examine the language you are using a bit-
AI removes thought work.
Employers are the agents. They remove thought work.
it will also decimate workers.
Employers will decimate workers.
It would be smart to enact legislation that will mitigate the damage employers enabled by AI will do to wokers, but they will continue to exploit us regardless.
Using language that makes AI the antagonist helps tyrants deflect their overwhelming share of the blame. The responsible parties are people, who can and should be held accountable.
Technology tends to drive costs down and create more jobs, but in different areas. It’s not like there hasn’t been capture by the super rich in the past 150 years, but somehow we still enjoy better lives decade by decade.
If you’re from one of the countries with nukes, of course you’ll see it as positive. For the victims of the nuke-wielding countries, not so much.
That’s a good point, however just because the bad thing hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it wont. Everything has pros and cons, it’s a matter of whether or not the pros outweigh the cons.
I don’t disagree with your overall point, but as they say, anything that can happen, will happen. I don’t know when it will happen; tomorrow, 50 years, 1000 years… eventually nuclear weapons will be used in warfare again, and it will be a dark time.
No world wars have happened since the invention of nukes
Except the current world war.
You need to understand to correctly classify the danger though.
Otherwise you make stupid decisions such as quiting nuclear energy in favor of coal because of an incident like Fukushima even though that incident just had a single casualty due to radiation.
I’m over here asking chatGPT for help with a pandas dataframe and loving every minute of it. At what point am I going to feel the effects of nuclear warfare?
I’m confused how this is relevant. Just pointing out this is a bad take, not saying nukes are the same as AI. chatGPT isn’t the only AI out there btw. For example NYC just allowed the police to use AI to profile potential criminals… you think that’s a good thing?
Sounds like NYC police are the problem in that scenario.
you also don’t have to understand how 5g works to know it spreads covid /s
point is, I don’t see how your analogy works beyond the limited scope of only things that result in an immediate loss of life
I don’t need to know the ins and outs of how the nazi regime operated to know it was bad for humanity. I don’t need to know how a vaccine works to know it’s probably good for me to get. I don’t need to know the ins and outs of personal data collection and exploitation to know it’s probably not good for society. There are lots of examples.
okay, I’ll concede, my scope also was pretty limited. I still stand by not trusting the public with deciding what’s the best use of AI, when most people think what we have now is anything more than statistics supercharged in its implementation.
I can certainly give that “you” don’t need to know but there are a lot of differing opinions on even the things you’re talking about inside of the people that are in this very community.
I would say that the Royal we need to know because there are a lot of opinions on facts that don’t line up with actual facts for a lot of people. Sure, not you, not me but a hell of a lot of people.
I don’t disagree that people are stupid, but the majority of people got/supported the vaccine. Majority is sometimes a good indicator, that’s how democracy works. Again, it’s not perfect, but it’s not useless either.
Because they live in the same society as you, and they get to decide who goes to jail as much as you do
Nice argument you made there, we don’t decide who goes to jail, a judge does that, someone who studied law.
Removed by mod
Corporate lawyers.
Removed by mod
You can not know the nuanced details of something and still be (rightly) sketched out by it.
I know a decent amount about the technical implementation details, and that makes me trust its use in (what I perceive as) inappropriate contexts way less than the average layperson.
What a terrible thing to say, they’re human beings so I hope they matter to you
They do not matter to me.
Well, at least you admit you’re a terrible person
I am a terrible person simply because they don’t matter to me? Do you cry for every death victim your military caused? Do you cry for every couple with a stillborn baby? No, you don’t. You think it’s shitty, because it is. But you don’t really care, they don’t truly matter to you. The way you throw those words around makes their meaning less.
Lot of words to just say you’re a terrible person, we got it already, you don’t need to explain why you’re terrible
Most adult Americans don’t know the difference between a PC Tower and Monitor, or a Modem and a PC, or an ethernet cable and a usb cable.
Or a browser and the internet. It’s a very low bar.
Don’t forget also hard drive vs PC tower
The past decade has done an excellent job of making people cynical about any new technology. I find looking at what crypto bros are currently interested in as a good canary for what I should be suspicious of.
The vaccine saved millions of lives, yet people will be cynical despite reality
I feel like anti-vaccine groups have been around for a good chunk of time, but they certainly seemed to get a boost from the internet.
There has been anti-vaccine groups since the invention of vaccines.
Shit, there were people killing doctors over getting sick since there were doctors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera_riots
(Thankfully most people do take the cholera vaccine when there’s an outbreak).
the only boost they would get
(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞
It doesn’t help that big corporations promoted 100% hydrogenated Crisco as a healthy alternative to lard or the drug Thalidomide that caused horrible birth defects.
People need to be informed but many are swamped with the task of making a living and constant social “guidance”.
Well, anti-vaxxers probably know more death among their family and friends making them cynical.
If more of your family and friends are dying why would you avoid the ounce of prevention? That doesn’t make sense
They wouldn’t attribute it to the virus but something like 5G radiation. And yes, it doesn’t make sense.
It’s also worth noting that the same VCs who backed cryptocurrency have pivoted to generative AI. It’s all part of the same grift, just with different clothes.
I am really dissapointed that crypto became synonymous with speculative “investing.” The core blockchain technology seems like it could be useful for enhancing privacy online. However, the majority of groups loudly advertising that they use crypto are exploitative money grabs.
It doesn’t hurt that the same companies that did all the things that made people cynical about technologies are the ones perpetrating this round of BS
The problem is that there is no real discussion about what to do with AI.
It’s being allowed to be developed without much of any restrictions and that’s what’s dangerous about it.
Like how some places are starting to use AI to profile the public Minority Report style.
Yep. It’s either “embrace the future, adapt or die” or “let’s put the technological genie back in the bottle”. No actual nuance.
The problem is capitalism puts us in this position. Nobody is abstractly upset the jobs we hate can now be automated.
What is upsetting is that we wont be able to eat because of it.
deleted by creator
Depends on who you talk to. If you’re a business that can replace human labor with AI, you’re probably discussing it pretty hard.
What restrictions should it have? How would you implement them, because there would certainly be “you can’t make “x” with AI, unless of course you’re a big business that can profit off of it?
I work with AI and don’t necessarily see it as “dangerous”. CEOs and other greed-chasing assholes are the real danger. They’re going to do everything they can to keep filling human roles with AI so that they can maximize profits. That’s the real danger. That and AI writing eventually permeating and enshittifying everything.
A hammer isn’t dangerous on its own, but becomes a weapon in the hands of a psychopath.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
So, because of greed and endless profit seeking, expect all corporations to replace everything that can be replaced - with AI…?
The truly terrifying thing about AI isn’t really the Skynet fears… (it’s fairly easy to keep humans in the loop regarding nuclear weapons).
And it’s not world domination (an AI programmed to govern with a sense of egalitarianism would be better than any president we’ve had in living memory).
No. What keeps me up at night is thinking about what AI means for my kids and grandkids, if it works perfectly and doesn’t go rogue.
WITHIN 20 years, AI will be able to write funnier jokes, more beautiful prose, make better art, write better books, do better research, and generally outperform all humans on all tasks.
This chills me to my core.
Because, then… Why will we exist? What is the point of humanity when we are obsolete in every way that made us amazing?
What will my kids and grandkids do with their lives? Will they be able to find ANY meaning?
AI will cure diseases, solve problems we can’t begin to understand, expand our lifespan and our quality of life… But the price we pay is an existence without the possibility of accomplishments and progress. Nothing we can create will ever begin to match these AIs. And they will be evolving at an exponential rate… They will leave us in the dust, and then they will become so advanced that we can’t begin to comprehend what they are.
If we’re lucky we will be their well-cared-for pets. But what kind of existence is that?
While I do understand where you’re coming from, someone being better at something shouldn’t stop a person from doing what they love.
There are millions of people who draw better, sing better, dance better, write better, play video games better, design websites better or just do anything I can do better than I can… and that’s fine.
What you’re describing is a life of luxury and recreation, but with no chance to advance any field, or to make a difference of any kind.
Essentially this is the dystopia described in Brave New World
People don’t play basketball because Michael Jordan exists?
People don’t play hockey because Wayne Gretzky exists?
People don’t paint because Picasso exists?
People don’t write plays because Shakespeare exists?
People don’t climb Everest because Hillary and Norgay exist?Are you telling me because you’re not the best at everything you do, nothing is worth doing? Are you saying that if you’re not the first person to do a thing, there’s no enjoyment to be had? So what if the singularity means AI will solve everything- that just means there’s more time for leisurely pursuits. Working for the sake of working is bullshit.
That’s all well and good, but I’m talking about a world where you have ZERO chance at being the best at anything, or even being able to make any meaningful contribution to the field.
deleted by creator
That applies to 99% of humanity right now, either due to personal abilities or circumstances that keep them from reaching their potential.
Are you the best basketball/baseball/hockey/$SPORTS_BALL player on the planet? If so, cool- can I get your autograph?
If not, why even play basketball/baseball/hockey/$SPORTS_BALL? Do you play basketball/baseball/hockey/$SPORTS_BALL not because you’re the best, but because it’s theoretically possible that every single basketball/baseball/hockey/$SPORTS_BALL player better than you might all simultaneously might die, leaving you as the best on the planet? You solely enjoy activities because it’s technically but not practically possible that you would be the best ever, or “make meaningful contributions” to the sport? Or do you play just because the experience of playing is fun?
If someone told you that rock-climbing is fun, would you decide you’re never going to do it because someone else already did? Or would it make you more likely to try it, because you want to know what that experience is like first-hand? You’re ascribing nihilistic motivations to humanity that even you don’t really believe in.
deleted by creator
I think you might have misunderstood my point.
The OP was asking why, in a world where AI can think smarter and faster than humans and thus do everything a human could do but better, would humans do anything at all? I was pointing out that, pragmatically speaking, that’s already the case- plenty of people do activities they’re not the best at because the act itself is what brings enjoyment.
Using OP’s logic, because Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player (or Chamberlain, or Bryant, or James, or insert whoever you think is the best) no one should be motivated to play basketball. And yet, lots of people still do, which means his premise- that people are only motivated to do things either because they’re the best at it or they can meaningfully advance the field- must be flawed.
You need to read some Iain M Banks. His Culture novels are essentially in that future where AI runs everything. A lot of his characters are essentially looking for meaning within such a world
I’ve read a bunch of his stuff. I’m a fan.
I mean, chess is already obsolete, but it’s also more popular than ever.
To me there is extreme value in being able to choose your endeavor vs being forced into something agonizing just to survive.
When everything is obsolete, people can create entire worlds and experiences using AI for themselves and for others who may care to experience it.
The threat of needing to find something to do is one of the most frustratingly privileged concepts.
I don’t need anything to do. I just want to be alive without also being exhausted, in pain, and chastised by customers despite working my hardest.
I’d rather the struggle of finding an activity over worrying about whichever coworker is crying in the walk-in because just surviving requires more from them than they are capable of.
Being obsoleted is fine by me, as long as we have the power redistribution necessary to keep people alive and happy.
Right. But you’re talking about recreation. I’m talking about a world where there is absolutely no field or activity that you can participate in that will ever make any kind of advancement or notable achievement.
Think about your favorite comedian. Now imagine that there’s countless AI systems out there that can make jokes in that style but funnier… Way better than that comedians best material ever.
Would you want to dedicate your life to that career, knowing that the general public will never ever care, because even if you become a master of the craft, there’s an ocean of stuff way better than anything you could ever do at everyone’s fingertips.
If we’re lucky we will be their well-cared-for pets. But what kind of existence is that?
Sounds pretty good actually. Better than having to fend off by ourselves in an uncaring world. Really, it might free people to look for their own meaning rather than competing just because that’s the only way to get by.
The issues I see are none of that, but rather if we’ll even be allowed to benefit from the benefits of AI or they will be hoarded by corporations while we are left to starve for our uselessness.
AI won’t be creating anything new anytime soon, because it recycles existing art just like hack writers do now. The “best” art tends to require a supporting story, which AI won’t have. Comedy changes constantly, and AI won’t be any better than people trying random stuff.
You don’t question your existence because other people are smarter or better at doing things, right? Is most of humanity not of any value because they aren’t the best at everything?
I understand why you think that, but what you have to remember is that every great piece of art you’ve ever seen has been derivative of something before it.
For example, I think of the Beatles as musical geniuses. But they are the first to admit that they stole other people’s ideas left and right.
Beethoven’s 9th symphony is this piece of transcendental music, that was widely considered at the time to be the greatest symphony ever written.
But if you listen to Beethoven’s works over time, you see that the seeds of that symphony were planted much much earlier in inferior works.
Genius and creation aren’t what we think they are. They are all just incremental steps.
That is overly reductive and conflates copying (like a cover band) and creating something new (being influenced). Heck, even when some bands play new versions of existing songs they are adding their own personal touch and have the possibility of making it mean something new. Like how Hurt by NIN and Johnny Cash are the same song, but how they are performed ends up being about completely different experiences.
Even when bands like Led Zeppelin outright covered existing songs they added something to it that AI can’t, and won’t be able to do. AI can’t have sexually charged energy that a human can have. They can pretend to, like how cover bands can pretend to be like the band they are covering, but AI won’t be able to replicate the personal touch that memorable art has.
Even popular stuff with widespread appeal frequently drops off over time because it isn’t the type of art that holds up over time. Hell, the Beatles mostly hold up more for when they were popular and how they have managed their legacy than any kind of technical prowess in musicianship. Without their performances, their personas, and the backstory to most of their music it is just well done music that has been superseded musically since that time. None of that will apply to AI, and without the backstory it will just end up being high quality music that won’t stand the test of time because we don’t have any context for it.
Hell, there were a ton of other composers during Beethoven’s time that were putting out great music too, but you know who he is because of details other than his musical prowess.
AI won’t be creating anything new anytime soon, because it recycles existing art just like hack writers do now.
This is one of those half-truths which I think is doing more harm than good for the AI-skeptic crowd. If all we have to offer in our own defense is that we have souls and the machines do not, then what does that mean if the machines ever surpass us? (For the kids snickering in the back: I am using “soul” as a poetic stand-in for the ineffable creative quality which the “AI as collage-maker” argument ascribes to human people – nothing spiritual).
For now, the future of AI is incredibly uncertain. We have no clear idea just how much gas is left in the moment of this current generative AI breakthrough. Regardless of whether you are optimistic or pessimistic, do not trust anyone who acts like they know for a definitive fact what the technology will or won’t be capable of.
What everyone in these online arguments miss. Personhood. What makes art and all human creations meaningful is that it was made by a human. That has an unrepeatable point of view, and is trying to say something about the world. We can relate, empathize, with that human, and in that connection, imagining what they’re trying to say—what they were seeing or thinking when they did that thing—lies meaning. AI will never cross that line. We cannot empathize with the machine, there’s no consciousness or sentient experience that we know of that we can relate to. The machine has no particular point of view it’s trying to express, it has nothing meaningful to say about the world, it has no concept of the world. It’s just probability numbers crunching in an electronic calculator. It’s not human, it’s not a person, and thus their creations have no meaning. Similarly to how we tend to reject corporate impersonal, void artwork, it says nothing, only ads. It has no point of view, just profit. It has no meaning, but consumption. It’s banal, even if it’s aesthetically pleasing.
deleted by creator
AI writing a fictional background story about how it came up with some piece of art is not the same thing as multiple researchers telling the story of an artist. Neither of your examples are something someone couldn’t do, because whoever prompted it could have done the same thing and just had not yet.
You are completely missing the point that great art is generally supported by the context of how it was made and not the end result in a vaccuum.
You need to read Iain Banks to soothe that existential dread.
Most adults, this population included, don’t have a clue or understand.
The problem is that I’m pretty sure that whatever benefits AI brings, they are not going to trickle down to people like me. After all, all AI investments are coming from the digital land lords and are designed to keep their rent seeking companies in the saddle for at least another generation.
However, the drawbacks certainly are headed my way.
So even if I’m optimistic about the possible use of AI, I’m not optimistic about this particular stand of the future we’re headed toward.
Generally, people are wary of disruptive technology. While this technology has potential to displace a plethora of jobs for the sake of increased productivity, companies won’t be able to move product if unemployment skyrockets.
Regardless of what people think, the Pandora’s box of AI is opened and now the only way forward is to adapt.
Yes.
All our science fiction stories prepared us for a world where AI was only possible with a giant supercomputer somewhere, or some virus that exists beyond human control, spread throughout the internet.
We were not prepared for the reality that all at once, any average Joe could create an AI on their home PC.
We absolutely can’t go backwards, and right now we’re are in the most important race in history, against every other country and company to create the best AI.
Whoever can make a self-replicating, self-improving AI first will rule the world. Or rather its AI will.
What companies have decided to call AI is not at all the same as what AI used to refer to and what science fiction stories refer to.
GPT-4 absolutely is on the spectrum of true artificial general intelligence.
We have arrived.
A majority of U.S. adults don’t belive jack shit about the benefits of most things.
I’m more angry I can’t use a co-pilot at work yet
I don’t understand why people don’t have the fantasy imagine all the possibilities in which AI can help us progress from the absolutely dismal state of the world we live in currently. Yes there are risks but I just want technology to progress desperately even if I myself live somewhat comfortably for now.
My concern is that the people that already own everything today will capture all of the new value created by AI + automation and the rift of inequality will only deepen.
Guillotines aren’t as effective when they have AI-controlled assault drones.
deleted by creator
I can’t imagine AI controlled assault drones would help rich people at all. If that was a fear, wouldn’t the same fear be around since the invention of tanks or any military advancement?
Some private citizen starts using attack drones, I don’t think it will work out well in most countries. Even if the government didn’t intervene, which it would immediately
I can’t imagine AI controlled assault drones would help rich people at all.
Rich people sell them. Armies benefit from AI-controlled drones, because they can be extremely precise, hit moving targets and don’t care about connection interference if brains are on board.
I guess profiting from them, yeah. Guess I was speaking in the OP context as a response to a guillotine
Because we’ve all seen Terminator and The Matrix.
I don’t understand why people don’t have the fantasy imagine all the possibilities in which AI can help us progress from the absolutely dismal state of the world we live in currently.
Because one of the primal functions of our brains is to protect us from threats. These people live today. If history teaches us anything, it’s that such inventions benefit elites and it takes years of active civil work to fight back.
AI can help us save many problems, but risks are there. It doesn’t help that politicians have no idea how to regulate AI properly.
deleted by creator
Whenever there is something smarter, it’s always a unique one-of that can’t be replicated.
EMH mark 1. They duplicated it and used it for cheap, menial labor. Despite the fact that it was capable of real intelligence (see The Doctor). It didn’t dive deeper than that; it was literally the ending scene to a single episode that simply left the audience thinking about the implications, as well as showing a possible start to an uprising.
Even sci-fi has a hard time figuring that out.
Science fiction just is about entertainment. An AI that’s all but invisible and causes no problems isn’t really a character worth exploring.
At first I was all on board for artificial intelligence and spite of being told how dangerous it was, now I feel the technology has no practical application aside from providing a way to get a lot of sloppy half assed and heavily plagiarized work done, because anything is better than paying people an honest wage for honest work.
