It’s encouraging to see the world wake up to the potential for AI to obliterate the human race,
But it is also somewhat puzzling.
Puzzling because the process of humans taking action to destroy the species has been ongoing for decades and has accelerated in recent years, and not (until very recently) because of AI.
We continue to invent more efficient and cheaper weapons of mass destruction, from dime store drones that can carry warheads long distances to hypersonic missiles to space lasers to biological weapons—and of course the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
We invent social media that can fry kids’ brains, rob them of self-esteem, and spread hatred and violence around the world, and we let it run amok.
We have been destroying forests, fouling the air and water and causing species to disappear for more than a century,
The world’s largest economy has devolved into armed camps between the two parties with a monopolistic stranglehold on power, and they won’t even talk to each other. Each party will do and say pretty much anything (and open their "wide tent" to welcome extremely dangerous views) in their insatiable lust for power.
And we lavish great sums on the elderly while ignoring the young, which is a recipe for long term decline, as the over 80 crowd refuses to loosen its grip on power.
So by all means we should do what we can to prevent AI from destroying us. But let’s not kid ourselves—we have been destroying ourselves for as far back as most people can remember.
Not all countries are using the advanced technology for weapons. China alone is using technology to benefit theur countries infulstructure , their science based developments. Not our country. Until we have the sane oversights and regulations we do not need to let these private parties advance any further.
Well damn, David L Mayer, I wish I could disagree, but alas, you make some very valid points. As far as the party's go, isn't the final decision up to “We The People”? We see who's in power and why they want to keep going without guard rails, and with no oversight. I say, follow the money and by all means, listen to the guy that started it and the rich guy's who have gotten what they could get from it and are now talking of the danger's of it. Please, DON'T listen to anything the president has to say about it. The “it” I am referring to is, AI. Personally, I would like it to stay an it, without a brain. 💙🇱🇷
The "AI is good" narrative is mostly about discriminative AI (or classic machine learning). The "AI is bad" narrative is mostly about generative AI (or LLM-based) which is essentially a word (token) guessing program. There is a world of difference between the two.
This distinction has to be mentioned by article authors otherwise the bad will drown out the good.
So what feels like a million years ago I was in New York to see a show. Jet-lagged I watched a daytime TV show in which an analyst was explaining how the next election would see US politics shifting on its axis. The 'smart new voters' weren't interested two party tribalism, they just wanted smart people in government who would deliver the best outcomes for their tax dollars. I was hoping to help transfer a Broadway show to London, but at that moment I just wanted to transfer those 'smart new voters' to the UK. Where dey go, Scott? And why are there so few 'adults in the room?' Should we send over David Attenborough to try and seek them out? P.S. I recall one grumpy old academic saying that there was more chance of winning an Oscar than creating a commercially successful podcast. Your performance on Section the other night would have won Best Picture for 'Sane Man In A Cuckoo Nest A Barely Holding It All In' Bravo!
"It’s time for an international artificial intelligence agency (IAIA)" Ends up as it always does with you globalists, like the WHO, China is in charge. The climate change crew, sameo, you cut carbon dioxide now we'll cut it in 2060, when it is no longer relevant because you are no longer relevant. AI you slow down, we'll slow down later, when it is no longer relevant because you are no longer relevant.
Of the 10% risk of A.I. evolving to the point of destroying humanity: that's a far less risk than the 50%, perhaps greater, of humanity destroying humanity.
Yes, A.I. could eventually run amok, but the greater risk, devoid of the thrill of scifi to capture imaginations, is its use by evil humans to do evil things.
Which, of course, brings up the Second Trump Reich and its infusion of immoral sycophants sworn to fealty to IL DUCE TRUMP instead of facts, intelligence, decency who now dwell in Federal agencies.
This is NOT a government that can be trusted or relied upon to oversee prevention of the weaponization of A.I.!
We have already watched helplessly and hopelessly as this Reich has deconstructed the U.S. Constitution, turned the U.S. military into the world's most powerful right-wing militia, and created IL DUCE TRUMP's personal paramilitary Nazi Brown Shirts to destroy non-white people.
This Reich WILL weaponize A.I. against us, just as it weaponized Palantir, Musk, Flock, Oracle, I.C.E., etc., against us.
And the stupidest man in the world thinks he is the smartest man in the world so nobody needs to worry, he's got this!
This kind of politically charged hyperbole does not advance the debate. No problem with your holding those views, but they are neither on point nor useful.
Again, I say that "unnecessary politicization" accusations are why we are where we are today. Decent Americans let the other side take over with their unchallenged politicization.
Well, I got a little breathless reading this but it helped educate me on an issue I don't understand very well. I enjoyed the sarcastic digs at the assorted perps.
It’s encouraging to see the world wake up to the potential for AI to obliterate the human race,
But it is also somewhat puzzling.
Puzzling because the process of humans taking action to destroy the species has been ongoing for decades and has accelerated in recent years, and not (until very recently) because of AI.
We continue to invent more efficient and cheaper weapons of mass destruction, from dime store drones that can carry warheads long distances to hypersonic missiles to space lasers to biological weapons—and of course the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
We invent social media that can fry kids’ brains, rob them of self-esteem, and spread hatred and violence around the world, and we let it run amok.
We have been destroying forests, fouling the air and water and causing species to disappear for more than a century,
The world’s largest economy has devolved into armed camps between the two parties with a monopolistic stranglehold on power, and they won’t even talk to each other. Each party will do and say pretty much anything (and open their "wide tent" to welcome extremely dangerous views) in their insatiable lust for power.
And we lavish great sums on the elderly while ignoring the young, which is a recipe for long term decline, as the over 80 crowd refuses to loosen its grip on power.
So by all means we should do what we can to prevent AI from destroying us. But let’s not kid ourselves—we have been destroying ourselves for as far back as most people can remember.
Not all countries are using the advanced technology for weapons. China alone is using technology to benefit theur countries infulstructure , their science based developments. Not our country. Until we have the sane oversights and regulations we do not need to let these private parties advance any further.
Well damn, David L Mayer, I wish I could disagree, but alas, you make some very valid points. As far as the party's go, isn't the final decision up to “We The People”? We see who's in power and why they want to keep going without guard rails, and with no oversight. I say, follow the money and by all means, listen to the guy that started it and the rich guy's who have gotten what they could get from it and are now talking of the danger's of it. Please, DON'T listen to anything the president has to say about it. The “it” I am referring to is, AI. Personally, I would like it to stay an it, without a brain. 💙🇱🇷
The "AI is good" narrative is mostly about discriminative AI (or classic machine learning). The "AI is bad" narrative is mostly about generative AI (or LLM-based) which is essentially a word (token) guessing program. There is a world of difference between the two.
This distinction has to be mentioned by article authors otherwise the bad will drown out the good.
So what feels like a million years ago I was in New York to see a show. Jet-lagged I watched a daytime TV show in which an analyst was explaining how the next election would see US politics shifting on its axis. The 'smart new voters' weren't interested two party tribalism, they just wanted smart people in government who would deliver the best outcomes for their tax dollars. I was hoping to help transfer a Broadway show to London, but at that moment I just wanted to transfer those 'smart new voters' to the UK. Where dey go, Scott? And why are there so few 'adults in the room?' Should we send over David Attenborough to try and seek them out? P.S. I recall one grumpy old academic saying that there was more chance of winning an Oscar than creating a commercially successful podcast. Your performance on Section the other night would have won Best Picture for 'Sane Man In A Cuckoo Nest A Barely Holding It All In' Bravo!
Thanks for covering the edges, Scott. For not letting them run the end-around, doing backflips and high-fiving as we suffer the afterburn.
I tell my son to pay close attention to you and Ed and Jessica. Clearing the weeds of bullshit is a demanding job. Thanks to all of you.
China carefully regulating their AI? Hopefully not the same regulators overseeing gain of function research in Wuhan.
"It’s time for an international artificial intelligence agency (IAIA)" Ends up as it always does with you globalists, like the WHO, China is in charge. The climate change crew, sameo, you cut carbon dioxide now we'll cut it in 2060, when it is no longer relevant because you are no longer relevant. AI you slow down, we'll slow down later, when it is no longer relevant because you are no longer relevant.
Of the 10% risk of A.I. evolving to the point of destroying humanity: that's a far less risk than the 50%, perhaps greater, of humanity destroying humanity.
Yes, A.I. could eventually run amok, but the greater risk, devoid of the thrill of scifi to capture imaginations, is its use by evil humans to do evil things.
Which, of course, brings up the Second Trump Reich and its infusion of immoral sycophants sworn to fealty to IL DUCE TRUMP instead of facts, intelligence, decency who now dwell in Federal agencies.
This is NOT a government that can be trusted or relied upon to oversee prevention of the weaponization of A.I.!
We have already watched helplessly and hopelessly as this Reich has deconstructed the U.S. Constitution, turned the U.S. military into the world's most powerful right-wing militia, and created IL DUCE TRUMP's personal paramilitary Nazi Brown Shirts to destroy non-white people.
This Reich WILL weaponize A.I. against us, just as it weaponized Palantir, Musk, Flock, Oracle, I.C.E., etc., against us.
And the stupidest man in the world thinks he is the smartest man in the world so nobody needs to worry, he's got this!
WORRY!
This kind of politically charged hyperbole does not advance the debate. No problem with your holding those views, but they are neither on point nor useful.
America is where it is because of that kind of dismissal, in my opinion.
I am not dismissing your argument, Michael, I am decrying your unnecessary politicization.
Again, I say that "unnecessary politicization" accusations are why we are where we are today. Decent Americans let the other side take over with their unchallenged politicization.
comfort ➡️ complacency ➡️ complicity
Well, I got a little breathless reading this but it helped educate me on an issue I don't understand very well. I enjoyed the sarcastic digs at the assorted perps.
Hide my reply but you are pretending its message won't affect your audience.