I was talking with a friend in the early days of AI boom. I argued that over-reliance in AI will create all kinds of catastrophes.

The answer I got is "It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. It can't be that bad".

I mean, yes, logic is useful, but ignorance of risks? Assuming that moving blazingly fast and pulverizing things will result in good eventually?

This AI thing is not progressing well. I don't like this.

▲

AnimalMuppet 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too.

You'll be forced to do it, or lose. The unstated assumptions are that, first, it will work, and second, that you can't afford to lose. But let's just assume those for the sake of argument.

> It can't be that bad

That does not follow at all. It can in fact be that bad. That was what made the game theory of MAD different from the game theory of most other things.

▲

Sharlin 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

An interesting ethical framework, your friend has.

	▲	bayindirh 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"Interesting" is a very brave and British way to put it, but yeah. Let's say I'm polar opposite of them, and we're on the same page with you.
	▲	busterarm 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Maybe. I could also interpret this as the friend being misunderstood. The whole "you'll be forced to do it" comes from the alternative being that you lose. You no longer get to be a player in the "game". In the same way that coopers and cobblers are no longer a significant thing, but we still have barrels and we still have shoes. Software engineers who refuse to employ any LLMs won't be market competitive. If you adopt it, you at least get to remain playing the game until the game changes/corrects. That's the part that's "not so bad". Choosing your own survival isn't ethically bankrupt.

▲

Terr_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The answer I got is "It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. It can't be that bad".

Oof. Potential "bad" outcomes of "game theory" should be calibrated to include all the bloody wars and genocides throughout recorded history.

Why did the Foi-ites kill every man, woman and child of the conquered Bar-ite city? Because if they didn't, then they'd be at a disadvantage if the Bar-ites didn't reciprocate in the cities they conquered...

	▲	bayindirh 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I know. I had counter arguments more targeted towards his thinking style, but he preferred to think straight like a machine, in a bad way. The problem was not him, but the fact that the number of people who thinks like him. They may word it in a more benign form, but the idea is the same. So obsessed with being the first mover and winning the battle, never thinking whether they should, or what would happen with that scenario. Missing the whole forest and beyond for a single branch of a single tree.

▲

chrisweekly 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

reliance, not resilience

	▲	bayindirh 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yep, you're right. I'm a bit tired and my fingers had a mind of their own. Thanks. :)