this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
528 points (93.3% liked)

Technology

59424 readers
3919 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (26 children)

The truly terrifying thing about AI isn't really the Skynet fears... (it's fairly easy to keep humans in the loop regarding nuclear weapons).

And it's not world domination (an AI programmed to govern with a sense of egalitarianism would be better than any president we've had in living memory).

No. What keeps me up at night is thinking about what AI means for my kids and grandkids, if it works perfectly and doesn't go rogue.

WITHIN 20 years, AI will be able to write funnier jokes, more beautiful prose, make better art, write better books, do better research, and generally outperform all humans on all tasks.

This chills me to my core.

Because, then... Why will we exist? What is the point of humanity when we are obsolete in every way that made us amazing?

What will my kids and grandkids do with their lives? Will they be able to find ANY meaning?

AI will cure diseases, solve problems we can't begin to understand, expand our lifespan and our quality of life... But the price we pay is an existence without the possibility of accomplishments and progress. Nothing we can create will ever begin to match these AIs. And they will be evolving at an exponential rate... They will leave us in the dust, and then they will become so advanced that we can't begin to comprehend what they are.

If we're lucky we will be their well-cared-for pets. But what kind of existence is that?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, chess is already obsolete, but it's also more popular than ever.

To me there is extreme value in being able to choose your endeavor vs being forced into something agonizing just to survive.

When everything is obsolete, people can create entire worlds and experiences using AI for themselves and for others who may care to experience it.

The threat of needing to find something to do is one of the most frustratingly privileged concepts.

I don't need anything to do. I just want to be alive without also being exhausted, in pain, and chastised by customers despite working my hardest.

I'd rather the struggle of finding an activity over worrying about whichever coworker is crying in the walk-in because just surviving requires more from them than they are capable of.

Being obsoleted is fine by me, as long as we have the power redistribution necessary to keep people alive and happy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right. But you're talking about recreation. I'm talking about a world where there is absolutely no field or activity that you can participate in that will ever make any kind of advancement or notable achievement.

Think about your favorite comedian. Now imagine that there's countless AI systems out there that can make jokes in that style but funnier... Way better than that comedians best material ever.

Would you want to dedicate your life to that career, knowing that the general public will never ever care, because even if you become a master of the craft, there's an ocean of stuff way better than anything you could ever do at everyone's fingertips.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I don't believe the world is as zero sum as you are postulating. I truly don't believe if ai were to be objectively better at creative pursuits that humans wouldn't do them.

I think you are removing the agency that people have because you are associating it to economic output. I disagree with that premise and I don't think that it's rational to suggest that humans only pursue things because it produces value.

load more comments (24 replies)