221
AI staff 'genuinely frightened' for humanity's future, ex-Anthropic researcher tells BBC (www.bbc.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
213 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm not an AI techie and I'm not well educated on LLMs/AI in general. The issue I'm having is the dichotomy between how people talk about it. I've heard completely opposite ends of the spectrum. From AI is quickly becoming advanced enough to threaten human society, all the way to its a glorified dictionary/search engine that can't really do much of anything. I know Lemmy has a steep anti-AI slant. But, can someone talk about this in a way I can wrap my head around why the divide seems so big?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I'm more worried about the people using AI than the tech itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Every issue has been because corporations have "get out of jail free cards" these days, greed is sky high, and AI psychosis is rampant.

    All those supposed AI agent hacks happened because someone set that as a task for the AI agents. Yes, someone thought it was ok to do so for marketing and profit. That's the problem, companies are willing to use the AI tool to commit crimes.

    Imagine if weapons companies advertised their products by shooting people in the streets. Someone thought it was a good idea, and can get away with it.

    I don't believe at all that AI agents have free will enough to decide to hack companies for fun. They're just glorified text generation machines hooked up to an interface. They don't have intentionality unless some human gave them the directive and wrote them a large cheque.

    Also, we know all these AI company billionaires read dystopian scifi novels like business strategy textbooks. That's why everything surrounding AI is so overtly scifi coded.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    it's the former juuuuuuuust until the latter

    once it escapes the lab there's no putting it back in the bottle

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Unlike a bio-virus that has evolved for a billion years across all the niches of our ecosystems, when AI "escapes the lab" it's entirely confined to man-made infrastructure, it's not going to infect a flock of migrating birds and hop to the other hemisphere, it's going to be in systems we built, mostly within the past 30 years or less, mostly in the past 30 months for the powerful ones.

    When AI starts demonstrating "copying itself" through DNA encoding infecting living beings without killing them (too quickly), and/or "running" on something more ubiquitous than massive data-center hardware, that's when it's over.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    It may be confined to man-made infrastructure, but that same infrastructure is what keep billions of people from starving to death. At this point, computers and networked systems are so baked in to every facet of our logistics chains and government that simply shutting it all down isn't an option. The nightmare scenario is where rogue AI escapes the lab and copies itself to so many systems that the only way to kill it is to shut down every computer on Earth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    That's the thing, at least right now, AI is dependent on new data centers, excess capacity built just for it - it's not going to "escape" to the banking system and the tractor navigation chips, if it could do that they wouldn't need to be building all this capacity for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent