https://www.axios.com/2023/09/19/mitre-harris-poll-ai-security-risks
The majority of U.S. adults don't believe the benefits of artificial intelligence outweigh the risks, according to a new Mitre-Harris Poll released Tuesday.
I don't understand why people don't have the fantasy imagine all the possibilities in which AI can help us progress from the absolutely dismal state of the world we live in currently. Yes there are risks but I just want technology to progress desperately even if I myself live somewhat comfortably for now.
My concern is that the people that already own everything today will capture all of the new value created by AI + automation and the rift of inequality will only deepen.
Guillotines aren't as effective when they have AI-controlled assault drones.
Any war against the rich will be a guerilla war. The National Guard has shinier toys than you.
I will bet literally everything I own that you don't have a drone with air-to-ground missiles.
I can't imagine AI controlled assault drones would help rich people at all. If that was a fear, wouldn't the same fear be around since the invention of tanks or any military advancement?
Some private citizen starts using attack drones, I don't think it will work out well in most countries. Even if the government didn't intervene, which it would immediately
I guess profiting from them, yeah. Guess I was speaking in the OP context as a response to a guillotine
Inequality is a huge problem but overall technology has clearly increased the standard of living globally. Maybe if I was living in the US, the way low skilled workers are treated despite the tremendous wealth it would also affect my outlook I have to admit. Overall I feel that, long term, technology is the only thing that can get the global population to prosperity and AI has the potential to be a massive boost for scientific progress. There must be some disruption imo, mostly due to progressing climate change for which we have no answer.
It's easy to imagine how AI can be beneficial in the short term. The problem is imagining how it won't go wrong in the long term.
Even sci-fi has a hard time figuring that out. StarTrek just stops at ChatGPT-level of intelligence, that's how smart the ship computer is and it doesn't get any smarter. Whenever there is something smarter, it's always a unique one-of that can't be replicated.
Nobody knows how the world will look like when we have ubiquitous smart and cheap AI, not just ChatGPT-smart, but "smarter than the smartest human"-smart, and by a large margin. There is basically no realistic scenario where we won't end up with AI that will be far superior to us.
Even sci-fi has a hard time figuring that out.
Science fiction just is about entertainment. An AI that's all but invisible and causes no problems isn't really a character worth exploring.
An AI that’s all but invisible and causes no problems isn’t really a character worth exploring.
Yeah, but don't you see the problem in that by itself? Even in the best case scenario we are heading into a future where humanities existence is so boring that it has no more stories worth telling.
We see a precursor to that with smartphones in movies today. The writer always have to slap some lame excuse in there for the smartphones to not work, as otherwise there wouldn't be a story. Hardly anybody can come up with ideas on how to have an interesting story where the smartphones do work.
Whenever there is something smarter, it's always a unique one-of that can't be replicated.
EMH mark 1. They duplicated it and used it for cheap, menial labor. Despite the fact that it was capable of real intelligence (see The Doctor). It didn't dive deeper than that; it was literally the ending scene to a single episode that simply left the audience thinking about the implications, as well as showing a possible start to an uprising.