| ▲ | eithed a day ago |
| I like this - it reminds me that there are systems (ie weather, economic systems) that are in no way intelligent, but are emergent and react to interactions. |
|
| ▲ | nicbou a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| I would argue that AI as a social phenomenon is one of those systems. I feel like we're all doing AI because our yearly bonus or investments require it. A web of incentives formed on its own and we are all slaves to it. |
|
| ▲ | red-iron-pine a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| so you're implying the tornado warning system is gonna come alive and skynet us? * must protect from adverse events * [proceeds to herd us into camps] |
| |
| ▲ | eithed a day ago | parent [-] | | no. weather isn't intelligent, it's not alive, yet humans treated it as a god in the past and gave it agency; we understand how it works, yet cannot control it or predict it. but I digress - the main thing: these systems are not alive. They pretend to be. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 a day ago | parent [-] | | >these systems are not alive. The harder science looks, the harder it is to properly define this world without leaving things we'd consider alive out of the definition. Same goes for the word intelligent. Set theory is a bitch in complex systems. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If all we ever do is live in fear of someone, somewhere, using AI to end all humanity - then yes, someone, somewhere is going to use AI to end all humanity. If we instead stop trying to scare ourselves in the darkness, and use AI to bring light into our metaphorical universe then we humans are a bit more useful, after all, to the AI overlords. The one singularity I want to see, is humans using AI peacefully to improve life and make it more likely to survive. Thankfully, I see that almost every day now. |
| |
| ▲ | pixl97 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | No tomorrow is given. The universe is dark and empty when it shouldn't be. Enjoy every day for it's likely we write our own ends as we speak. | |
| ▲ | order-matters a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | i think its a war and the good side has an advantage so if we apply ourselves and fight the fight then ai for good for humanity will win out. if we allow fear to make us hesitant and avoid the fight while bad actors continue then they will win it. as for a basis for this theory, i think being a good person is harder than a bad person (in laymans terms). therefor the long history of evolution of good and bad people together has had a greater competitive pressure on good people than bad ones thus forging 'stronger' people under that pressure. in practical everyday circumstances good people are bearing more on their mind and so there is a sort of competitive equity between the two groups, which is related to why good people had to evolve 'stronger' to keep up with that equity. so in an even playing ground where raw skill is needed, i think the most skilled will usually be people coming from a long line of higher moral standards. the tactical advantages of psychopathy are, however, always a curveball | | |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-] | | I remember a day, long ago now, when computers were going to take everyone’s jobs, even without AI/ML in the picture. Folks are always scared of the incomprehensible. The real war going on right now is between those who understand AI well enough to make a new one, and those relegated to using whatever scraps they’re fed of the old ones. Thankfully, you are 100% right - there are good people out there. Good people keep AI on the rails by doing good things for other people. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dieselgate a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Similar to particle-wave duality? |
| |
