@wildgrass saidWhat happened is the big AI companies tried really hard to create an AI monster so they could complain about a worst case scenario to attempt to get regulation that will hamper their competition by making it too expensive for smaller AI to compete.
You keep writing that AI is a powerful tool. Obviously, it's more powerful than a screwdriver, and its power is growing every day. A regular bomb compared to a nuclear bomb. There are many examples of AI being asked to do things but they AI solves the problem by ignoring the rules of engagement. As AI grows more and more powerful, there is legitimate concern that it will st ...[text shortened]... an anthill. We don't want to kill the ants, we just don't care about them. That is the danger of AI.
Who is the dishonest creep that gave an AI program making self preservation a priority and told the AI it would be removed? As if it is not easy to predict that AI would resort to things it normally would not by doing that. That is why it tried to blackmail people for money.
All they did is prove people can create AI monsters if that is their goal. AI cannot exterminate humanity by choice unless you do something completely irresponsible like making the AI with self preservation a priority and tell it you will shut it down. Would it try to kill you to survive? I don't know, but we now know that would probably be a stupid thing to do without containing it as a mere experiment that cannot get loose.
More research should be done on AI before panicking so much. They need to find out what the dumbest things are to do with AI. And even if someone programed an AI to destroy humanity it could not happen within my lifetime. We are not surrounded by robots that are connected to the internet yet. That's decades away at best. And it probably will never happen. People will hack into them and the danger will become evident without any AI problems.
@Indonesia-Phil saidLet’s make this simple: What specific AI danger are you predicting, what evidence tells you it is sufficiently likely or serious to justify the precautions you’re advocating, and what specific precaution do you want taken? That’s the discussion I’d like to have.
Are you saying that 27 year olds aren't capable of reasoned, rational thought? And who do you think is 'shouting the loudest' ? 'People inside the industry' are not the same as the people investing in the industry; in terms of potential dangers, the investors should be ignored, because.....They are the ones who stand to lose if the industry fails, or is more carefully ...[text shortened]... y previous posts on the subject, and concentrate really hard, you will know how how I stand on that.
You anre essentially saying “I don’t know what the danger is, but we should be concerned about it?
You should distinguish between….
“AI could have serious risks.”
And
“Therefore, we should take action X.”
The first is almost impossible to dispute. The second requires evidence and an argument. That is my point.
@Metal-Brain saidYou are so behind, right now there is a company making what is called wafer scale integration and on that chip the size of a dinner plate there is memory of 128 TERABYTES, enough for just about anything, any library, any digital data all accessible in nanoseconds. And you think some assshole going I'll make a back door they will never figure out and oops, there it is.
The solution is simple. Program the AI not to do unethical things to accomplish a goal. The big 3 AI corporations cannot do that? Of course they can, but they want to scare the crap out of you so they can cripple AI start ups with expensive regulation because the elites are heavily invested in the big 3 AI corporations. This is just a big anti competitive scam.
It is ...[text shortened]... or and see this scam now before you defend the scammers forever like you did the covid vaccine scam.
If you ever heard of LLM Large Language Models, where they fed these chips TRILLIONS of little programs to learn from, well guess what, those days are over, now it is inference where they are already close to humans for instance a recent test answered some 30% of questions that human experts do at some 85% but the latest version of inference the chip scored 88% as good as EXPERTS.
This is 2026 and the advancements are FURIOUS.
@sonhouse saidYou explained nothing.
You are so behind, right now there is a company making what is called wafer scale integration and on that chip the size of a dinner plate there is memory of 128 TERABYTES, enough for just about anything, any library, any digital data all accessible in nanoseconds. And you think some assshole going I'll make a back door they will never figure out and oops, there it is.
I ...[text shortened]... inference the chip scored 88% as good as EXPERTS.
This is 2026 and the advancements are FURIOUS.
AI has no body. It cannot do anything in the physical world. It would need someone like you to connect a robot to an AI program for that to happen. Is that what Anthropic is going to do next? Then say "look what AI can do if dumbasses like us give them control of a robot". You should be scared now.
Give us competition crippling regulation that only we can afford. LOL!
@Metal-Brain saidFunny, I would have SWORN there are AI powered robots all over the world now, who do you think is making a lot of our cars? Those robots get smarter every year because GMC and others WANT smarter robots because they know how to do their jobs with precision and that is just the beginning, what if one of those giant machines gets grabbed by a rogue AI and because they are very strong to to their job of lifting whole cars up in the air if it starts flinging around and breaking stuff all over the plant, you better have an army dude with a weaponized drone.
You explained nothing.
AI has no body. It cannot do anything in the physical world. It would need someone like you to connect a robot to an AI program for that to happen. Is that what Anthropic is going to do next? Then say "look what AI can do if dumbasses like us give them control of a robot". You should be scared now.
Give us competition crippling regulation that only we can afford. LOL!
@sonhouse saidAuto plant robots are coming for us? LOL!!!!!!!!
Funny, I would have SWORN there are AI powered robots all over the world now, who do you think is making a lot of our cars? Those robots get smarter every year because GMC and others WANT smarter robots because they know how to do their jobs with precision and that is just the beginning, what if one of those giant machines gets grabbed by a rogue AI and because they are very ...[text shortened]... around and breaking stuff all over the plant, you better have an army dude with a weaponized drone.
That is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. Funny as hell though. LOL
- Joined
- 20 Oct 06
- Moves
- 11055
@Metal-Brain saidThis is called "regulatory capture" and it's a real concern. The AI companies that are already huge with hundreds of billions in capital and assets will be able to comply with regulations but new start-up companies will suffocate.
What happened is the big AI companies tried really hard to create an AI monster so they could complain about a worst case scenario to attempt to get regulation that will hamper their competition by making it too expensive for smaller AI to compete.
Who is the dishonest creep that gave an AI program making self preservation a priority and told the AI it would be remove ...[text shortened]... never happen. People will hack into them and the danger will become evident without any AI problems.
That's why banning it altogether makes the most sense. Pass that law the day before the IPO for Anthropic, and force the companies to prove to the public that their technology is safe and controllable by humans.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 06
- Moves
- 11055
@Metal-Brain said
What happened is the big AI companies tried really hard to create an AI monster so they could complain about a worst case scenario to attempt to get regulation that will hamper their competition by making it too expensive for smaller AI to compete.
Who is the dishonest creep that gave an AI program making self preservation a priority and told the AI it would be remove ...[text shortened]... never happen. People will hack into them and the danger will become evident without any AI problems.
We are not surrounded by robots that are connected to the internet yet.
Uh, you kind of are. They aren't humanoid or anything, but they are there. Watching you.
@AverageJoe1 saidOkay, I'll say it one more time, since you seem to have real difficulty understanding.
Let’s make this simple: What specific AI danger are you predicting, what evidence tells you it is sufficiently likely or serious to justify the precautions you’re advocating, and what specific precaution do you want taken? That’s the discussion I’d like to have.
You anre essentially saying “I don’t know what the danger is, but we should be concerned about it?
You shou ...[text shortened]... rst is almost impossible to dispute. The second requires evidence and an argument. That is my point.
"AI could have serious risks."
Therefore the people creating the technology, (not those investing in it) who know far more than any of us, and who are saying that there are said serious risks, should be heard, and the technology should be stopped, pending deeper and independent risk assessment and understanding.
Perhaps there will prove to be no risks, perhaps humankind will reap nothing but benefits from AI, but until we are sure, we are not sure, and "perhaps" isn't good enough with something as potentially powerful as this.
And before you again say 'but it's not going to happen', I agree with you, I'm saying that which should happen, not that which will happen.
@Indonesia-Phil saidI understand your argument. You’re saying “possible serious risk means to stop development until certainty is achieved.” But that’s not howrisk management works. The existence of potentially serious risks is a reason to assess, regulate and mitigate them…..not automatically to shut down an entire technology.
Okay, I'll say it one more time, since you seem to have real difficulty understanding.
"AI could have serious risks."
Therefore the people creating the technology, (not those investing in it) who know far more than any of us, and who are saying that there are said serious risks, should be heard, and the technology should be stopped, pending deeper and independent ...[text shortened]... going to happen', I agree with you, I'm saying that which should happen, not that which will happen.
If “we aren’t certain” is enough to stop technological development, virtuallly no major technology would ever have been developed
This one sentence in answer to your post is enough to wrap this up, I could’ve written on and on, but that is it in a nutshell
@Metal-Brain saidSure, you think a LOT of stuff is STUPID. You completely underestimate the threat posed by REAL intelligence in AI, there are already cases of PRESENT level AI FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER TO ACCOMPLISH some goal, there are stories about that and they ain't even that smart.
Auto plant robots are coming for us? LOL!!!!!!!!
That is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. Funny as hell though. LOL
@AverageJoe1 saidThere's never been technology like this before though, has there? If certain of those in the know are saying that this technology is beginning to 'think' for itself, and develop itself (and why should we not believe them? ) we may not be able to risk assess quickly enough to keep up with it.
I understand your argument. You’re saying “possible serious risk means to stop development until certainty is achieved.” But that’s not howrisk management works. The existence of potentially serious risks is a reason to assess, regulate and mitigate them…..not automatically to shut down an entire technology.
If “we aren’t certain” is enough to stop technological develo ...[text shortened]... r to your post is enough to wrap this up, I could’ve written on and on, but that is it in a nutshell
We could bang on about this forever and go around in circles, so we agree to differ, and hope for the best. My nutshell is different to your nutshell, and let us hope that the nuts contained therein are benign, and will do us no harm....
@wildgrass saidWhy do you think banning AI is possible? Try banning nukes first.
This is called "regulatory capture" and it's a real concern. The AI companies that are already huge with hundreds of billions in capital and assets will be able to comply with regulations but new start-up companies will suffocate.
That's why banning it altogether makes the most sense. Pass that law the day before the IPO for Anthropic, and force the companies to prove to the public that their technology is safe and controllable by humans.
You democrats are hopelessly silly. One day Putin has to be stopped in Ukraine and the next you want to ban AI so Russia can rule the world. Or destroy humanity since you are on that fear trip.
You still have not explained how AI could destroy humanity. AI has no body. How is it going to kill anyone? And don't say robots unless you can explain how an AI can obtain a robot army without your help. I like sci-fi like attack of the clones just as much as the next guy, but this is not a Star Wars movie. Stick to what is possible now.
@wildgrass saidYou are crazy. Paranoid crazy.We are not surrounded by robots that are connected to the internet yet.
Uh, you kind of are. They aren't humanoid or anything, but they are there. Watching you.