Technology

AI, climate change, and nuclear weapons proliferation

One of those is not like the others. Nuclear weapons can wipe out humanity at any minute right now. Climate change has been starting the job of wiping out humanity for a while now. When and how is AI going to wipe out humanity?

This is not a criticism directed at you, by the way. It's just a frustration that I keep hearing about AI being a threat to humanity and it just sounds like a far-fetched idea. It almost seems like it's being used as a way to distract away from much more critically pressing issues like the myriad of environmental issues that we are already deep into, not just climate change. I wonder who would want to distract from those? Oil companies would definitely be number 1 in the list of suspects.

52-yo American dude here, no longer worried about nuclear apocalypse. Been there, done that, ain't seeing it. If y'all think geopolitics are fucked up now, 🎵"You should have seen it in color."🎶

We can close a time or three, but no one's insane enough to push the button, and no ONE can push the button. Even Putin in his desperation will be stymied by the people who actually have to push MULTIPLE buttons.

AI? IDGAF. Computers have power sources and plugs. Absolutely disastrous events could unfold, but enough people pulling enough plugs will kill any AI insurgency. Look at Terminator 2 and ask yourself why the AI had to have autonomous machines to win. I could take out the neighborhood power supply with a couple of suitable guns. I'm sure smarter people than I could shut down DCs.

Climate change? Sorry kids, it's too late and you are righteously fucked. Not saying we shouldn't go full force on mitigation efforts, but y'all haven't seen the changes I've seen in 50 years. Winters are clearly warmer, summers hotter, and I just got back from my camp in the swamp. The swamp is dry for the first time in 4 years.

And here's one you might not have personally experienced; The insects are disappearing. I could write an essay on bugs alone. And don't start me on wildlife populations.

I'm sitting here hoping that they all block each other out because they are all trying to fit through the door at the same time.

An ai will detonate nuclear weapons to change the climate into an eternal winter. Problem solved. All the win at the same time. No loosers… oh. Wait, no…

Then the errant gamma ray burst sneaks in for the kill.

Right?!?!! Lines are obvious. Only if they thought they could get away with it, and they might, actually, but also what if?!?!

Restricting AI would require surveillance on every computer all the time.

I don't think there's any stopping the "fewer ethical considerations", banned or not. For each angle of AI that some people want to prevent, there are others who specifically want it.

Though there is one angle that does affect all of that. The more AI stuff happening in the open, the faster the underground stuff will come along because they can learn from the open stuff. Driving it underground will slow it down, but then you can still have it pop up when it's ready with less capability to counter it with another AI-based solution.

Working in a corporate environment for 10+ years I can say I've never seen a case where large productivity gains turned into the same people producing even more. It's always fewer people doing the same amount of work. Desired outputs are driven less by efficiency and more by demand.

Let's say Ford found a way to produce F150s twice as fast. They're not going to produce twice as many, they'll produce the same amount and find a way to pocket the savings without benefiting workers or consumers at all. That's actually what they're obligated to do, appease shareholders first.

I mean I don't want an AI to do what I do as a job. They don't have to pay the AI and food and housing, in a lot of places, aren't seen as a human right, but a privilege you are allowed if you have money to buy it.

Just wait and see

Remindmebot! 10 years

A technological revolution which disrupts the current capitalist standard through the elimination of labor scarcity, ultimately rendering the capital class obsolete isn't far off from Marx's original speculative endgame for historical materialism. All the other stuff beyond that is kind of wishy washy, but the original point about technological determinism has some legs imo

So you're basically scared of skynet?

People may argue that AI is quickly improving on this but it will take a massive leap between a perfect diffusion model an Artificial General Intelligence. Fundamentally, those aren't even the same kind of thing.

But AI as it is today can already cause a lot of harm simply by taking over jobs that people need to make a living, on the lack of something like UBI.

Some people say this kind of Skynet fearmongering is nothing but another kind of marketing for AI investors. It makes its developments seem much more powerful than they actually are.

Karel Čapek wrote about it in 1920

Imo, Andrew Ng is actually a cool guy. He started coursera and deeplearning.ai to teach ppl about machine/deep learning. Also, he does a lot of stuff at Stanford.

I wouldn't put him in the corporate shill camp.