The people claiming it’s humanity ending are all directly involved in the AI companies. One take is that they are the ones that know the most about it.
My take is they are financially incentivized in making sure their investments grow in value.
post
replies:
Personally, this just feels like marketing and these big asshole companies trying to resurrect the 2025 level of hype in order to salvage their IPO's.
If they honestly believed this I can't imagine that their workers wouldn't do something more drastic.
I knew a guy in high school that told girls they shouldn't date him because his dick was so big it would hurt them. You can wax philosophical on his motives if you'd like, but spoiler alert - his dick wasn't big.
replies:
The biggest risk I see is Idiocracy. Like, the movie.
Business workers become afraid to do or propose anything without AI signoff. Retail & service workers are told to do what the AI says, the way the AI says to do it, or get fired.
Technology innovator Marshall Brain (RIP) wrote a book in the early 2000s about an AI called "Manna" designed to replace fast food managers:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201204080050/https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
The AI just talks in your ear all day: "Empty one bag of fries into the fryer. You have 6.5 minutes, switch to the sandwich station. Make one Big Burger: grab one patty from the 1/4 pound bin and place it on the griddle... ... The fries are ready, turn around and lift them into the drain hopper..."
All day, every day, exactly 8 hours plus mandatory breaks, employees on autopilot listening on ear buds.
replies:
I'm more worried about the people using AI than the tech itself.
replies:
I feel like the AI hype has died and people are trying to prop it up with doomsday scaring.
replies:
These people are too high on their own supplies.
replies:
Humanity should be way more frightened of greedy psychopaths running the world than any technology.
replies:
Everytime I see an article about the dangers of AI, I'm thinking of some version of this comic every single time.
And the reason it is dangerous is generally because someone is convinced that Ai models are not as shown above.
replies:
In addition to what everyone else said, I'll tell you why I don't think that what we have currently can become some runaway superhuman intelligence:
All “AI” people are talking about are basically “just” LLM wrappers: tools built to run a LLM in a loop while giving it access to the ability to write and run code. This gets pretty powerful, since you can do a lot programmatically (including monetary transactions), but has a fundamental limit:
LLMs are trained ahead of time. And that's a very cost intensive, long process. Beyond that, the LLM has only a context window of finite length. So there are no long-term planning capabilities. While running after being trained, the LLM can only condense knowledge into a summary and then re-read it, a lossy process that might introduce mistakes in “understanding” and will make any prolonged task degrade over time.
And even if they figure out how to make the things actually self-modify and learn things, you can't give every session that ability, since that'll vastly increase the storage and performance requirements. Do sessions with that ability will be closely monitored and limited.
So I don't see any space where an evil AI could emerge, even when factoring in an essential possible future improvement to the technology.
replies:
Ed Zitron’s podcast “Better Offline” recently talked about this. There is a small tech community called the Rationalists who believe AI super intelligence is inevitable and it will either accelerate humanity to new heights or kill off the species. These rationalists are actually a very prominent faction within tech and the AI industry. Apparently the language used within top AI firms is largely about the immense danger posed by AI super intelligence if any other group or company were to achieve it first. This creates an echo chamber that makes the people in the industry kind of lose their mind and misinterpret the capability of LLMs.
Everyone outside that faction recognizes that LLMs are just unreliable cloud software with limited use cases and that there’s no evidence LLMs could actually lead to any kind of intelligence.
Edit: Please, someone stop me from commenting on an AI post next time I’m tempted. I’m so tired of people replying, arguing with opinions I don’t have, based entirely around a hypothetical technology that doesn’t exist yet. LLMs make slop. Thats it. They hacked a company after weeks of 100s of instances being run, using old exploits published online. San Francisco will be underwater from climate change before LLMs can do anything more.
replies:
load more comments
(-3 replies)
[deleted]
replies:
I've heard a few explanations for the "AI will kill us all" narrative.
-
AI techies are in a cult. They genuinely believe this stuff because they're crazy.
-
It makes the AI sound powerful and impressive, which is ultimately good for the AI companies.
-
They're starting to face competition from open-weight models, so they want to scare politicians into crafting regulations. They think that they will be able to influence the regulations to favor them and squeeze out their competition.
And, of course, there's
- It keeps people talking about AI. Because whatever you do, don't quit talking about AI, because if you quit talking about it, the line might go down! And the line going down is very, very bad.
replies:
view more:
next ›
top 100 comments