762
AI doomerism is AI company marketing (pawb.social)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 week ago (12 children)

True, pure marketing - or outright propaganda.

It won't get us killed. It would require a state to plug an AI into their nuclear arsenal with full, independent target and fire permissions - there are too many humans in any state for something that absurdly stupid to happen. I know we're living in the most stupid timeline, but that's something simply not realistic to expect ever happening.

Other than that it's just scaremongering by AI companies for marketing reasons and social media influencers to make money (remember, outrage and fear generates revenue through clicks and impressions on corpo media).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    It would require a state to plug an AI into their nuclear arsenal with full, independent target and fire permissions - there are too many humans in any state for something that absurdly stupid to happen.

    The current "state" in the US is absolutely stupid enough to do something like that. The only solace I have is that most nuclear defense systems are intentionally low-tech — both for reliability and for security. I'm pretty sure the only thing stopping the current regime from plugging ChatGPT into the nuclear triad is that it's structurally impossible to plug anything into it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    The government is, but there are quite a few more people involved in the process. Which make it very unlikely for something to happen.

    Also the AI companies themselves know very well it would be an awful idea, no matter what their marketing says. Trump would evidently be stupid enough, but the people who actually would work on the new system wouldn't all be. And we've seen in history that even loyal soldiers refuse to destroy the world when put on the spot with systems already working, in this case it would be a long process of many people working on a system everyone knows "can make mistakes". No way that system would end up being finished.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (1 child)
    1. Trump's cabinet would sign off on that
    2. Equally a simulated perceived threat would cause MAD
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    Trumps cabinet can sign off many things, doesn't mean it would end up being put in place. Before a world-ending machine where thousands of people have to knowingly cooperate for, which we all know "can make mistakes", would be finished too many cogs (people) in the system would stop properly working. Info leaked, malicious compliance, (AI) companies refusing due to investors getting pissy, etc etc.

    It's one thing to build a world-ending system "for the good guys" if a majority of those tasked with it truly believe it being a good thing for "deterrence". But the whole AI paranoia itself would cause this plan to fail somewhere.

    It's good to be vigilant, but despite everything currently going on there really is no reason to drive yourself crazy about something so absurdly unlikely. There are way better things to put your energy into to fight fascism successfully.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    Hegseth authorized the bombing of a school in Iran after ignoring the AI that flagged it as a civilian building and not a target. No one stopped that from happening. Israel uses an AI targeting system to murder civilians daily.

    I’m not gonna put any stock in the idea that someone intelligent will always stand in the way of the moron reaching for the big red button.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Or somebody could vibecode the software that runs on a missile silo and no one notices it has a bug until the warhead goes off before it gets launched.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Yep, most likely ai will kill us by turning our brains to mush, to a point where eg construction workers and nuclear safety engineers are asking “Chat, how do I …”. Software developers are front runners here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Luckily AI is at least somewhat good at also checking the code! :D

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    It will never be a smart idea to use LLMs to approve PRs, no matter how good they get.

    I will say this categorically. If there is not at least one human at the company who understands a piece of code, that piece of code is a liability, no matter how well it works. The reason that AI can't replace programmers isn't that it isn't good enough at generating code (although I'd still argue it isn't), it's that even code written by humans who are no longer at the company is an unmaintainable mess to the next batch of programmers who replace them. Changes in one part of the code often affect other parts of the code in ways that are hard to predict unless you know all of it at once, and that's something AI is really bad at spotting. Some human, somewhere, has to understand the thing, and if you're automating the review process, sooner or later it's gonna let a bug through and and it's going to be borderline impossible to find.

    Also, just the idea that you would trust an AI to decide what changes are good for your codebase... eugh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Except for when it is.

    This statement is true but somewhat for the wrong reason, LLM is a tool. And if a none dev uses it to create code, and just let their hands of the wheel then yes, shit will break and it will be bad. But enviornments like a missile silo, is already within itself a solved problem, but also has procedures to counteract the thing you yourself highlighted. Bad code and bad code practices existed before AI, and will continue to exist after AI.

    It does not decide anything, it is an LLM. But for example what do you bring to a code review of a 10k+ lines to replace one parameter with another? The AI can do a very quick and efficient search for basic or clear bugs, and sometimes even logical errors, but yes should not remove the human altogether. But claiming that an AI would have no use in a PR workflow is ignorant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent