It's weird that you are representing the robots rather than the executives and socioeconomic systems as the driving force. AI isn't the underlying problem, but it does exacerbate it, at least in the short term. Instead of rallying against AI as a concept, why not use this disruptive moment to rally against the perverse incentives?
It saddens me that what should have a widely celebrated breakthough - the ability to fluently interact with machines in natural language - is causing so much fear and disgust. It also saddens me that we have backslid so much in terms of social progress in the past 10 years.
I don't think how "easy" a solution is should be the metric by which we argue for it. Also I don't think smashing a robot with a rock will solve anything.
one robot with one rock, no. many robots and many rocks, eh. who knows? better than your solution of “ackshually the torment nexus is a good thing if you pretend we’re not in the system that we’re in and that it will magically change despite the total power and control the very people building the torment nexus wield over governments and markets”
ai bad. maybe it would be good under a different system, under this one it will lead to the deaths of billions. you understand the goal of ai is to replace humanity, correct? that’s not a conspiracy theory or crazy take, they literally say that shit out loud.
No, I don't think you are right that the goal of AI is to replace humanity. I can understand why you're so hyperbolic if you think that. But you don't have a basis to think that other than your own imagination.
I don't think we should pretend to know things that we don't. And I think you're pretending to know something.
the entire point of all of this is to automate away the need for human labor. that is the only reason corporations want ai, so they don’t have to pay a human being to do work and get more money in their own pockets. the job losses have already started and they’ll just grow more and more as time goes on. entry level positions are growing less and less available as time goes on, what effect do you think that has exactly, people not being able to even get their foot in the door of their chosen fields?
genuinely you are living with your eyes closed if you think that ai isn’t meant to replace us. open those eyes buddy, get your head out of the sand, you’re not an ostrich.
You are afraid for legitimate reasons, but then you make an unjustified leap of inference. Clever wit doesn't make an argument valid. Short term pathological incentives are causing harm. I don't argue that. I think you need to be careful of your extrapolation.
I didn't see a path where "Replace all humans" happens. The system breaks far before that point.I don't think anyone has that as their long term goal. You're romanticizing it. They think: how do I cut costs now. Rail against short term thinking, and didn't erroneously extrapolate imagined motivations.
why do you keep saying short term as if this isn’t their plan the whole time? they’re not gonna suddenly go “oh we raked in all these profits and money getting rid of people and automating their jobs, oh well, better stop now for no reason and make less money.” it’s a direct logical next step. there’s no unjustified inference, it’s a direct chain of events that lead into each other.
when the system breaks, who has the power? the techno-fuedal overlords with the armies of robots do. what do you think the private islands and bunkers and guards are for exactly? they know what’s coming and they’re prepared for it because that is their plan to make that happen.
I understand that you can't see the gap in your reasoning. But you are attributing cause based on one hypothesis, and you can't imagine the alternative. Where are they getting the power when the system breaks? Because they have it now? I'm any case you're treating your speculation as fact, and there is also a hostile attribution bias.
fwiw guards and private islands isn't predictive. bunkers are likely less common than you think, and also aren't unsurprising given wealth inequality. replace all humans doesn't (have to) follow.
edit: I should clarify. it's not that you are 100% certainly wrong. its just that you shouldn't act like you are 100% sure.
did you miss the “army of robots” bit? that’s not power to you? control over the media and what information is accessed and has priority isn’t power? control of our social media platforms, out politicians, literally everything, but you don’t see how they have the power? and i’m the blind one. why do you love and trust corpos so much? answer my question from before, why exactly would they ever stop automating and getting rid of human labor when there is NO incentive for that?
you just saying “no” isn’t very convincing at all i’m afraid.
I'm not saying "no". I'm saying the way you are thinking about it is fanciful, over certain, and binarized. you've just attributed to me several opinions that I don't have.
do you know what I want? I want to get things done. I want to discover new things. I want to understand the way the world works. I want to build automations and systems that reduce the amount of labor necessary. I'm not the only one who wants these things.
You are ascribing a villainous master plan to some "other" entity, instead of understanding how short term incentives lead to unsustainable systems.
I have a great deal of fear and uncertainty about the future. but I'm honest with myself about where the uncertainty is, and my predictions for the future aren't just snapping to the closest science fiction story I've heard. I also clarify that their predictions, and I don't pretend to possess some omniscience.
Here's what I think will happen. I think there's a possibility that we don't reduce the amount of energy AI systems take, and thus once the subsidies dry up they no longer are economical to use. I hope that doesn't happen. The other case is that we figure out how to make them more power efficient, and that does mean that they can replace a lot of labor humans currently have to do. note they're replacing the labor, not necessarily the humans. it becomes cheaper for people to do more with less. for creatives and those who want to do and build things, that is a boon. for those that just want a nine to five paycheck, and then to check out, that's where there will be some issues. The popular solution is UBI. Clearly there is a ??? step between us and that. but I do that is the more likely ending to a world where there are cheap services, but consumers have no income.
Now I also think that there's a possibility of something similar to what you're saying. The world is no stranger to dictatorial totalitarianism. The idea that it can't happen here is wrong. But again, my point is that there are other possibilities, it's not guaranteed to happen, and you are pretending that it is.
308
u/I_Set_3_Alarms 25d ago
The downside is if you don’t embrace AI, you’ll be replaced by someone who does… who will then likely be the one replaced by AI.
Catch 22