[madrox]

Anti-AI seems poised to be the anti-vax of the next few years, where laymen pick up lines like "we have no idea how AI does the stuff it does" and take that wholly out of context. As a society, we have to decide how we feel about AI in legal and cultural contexts as we expand our capabilities, but there's time to do that. Github Copilot will not end up launching nuclear missiles in the meantime. Stuff like this just creates FUD.

I don't know what to make of this, though. This author, after some googling, seems to know a thing or two, but without any background on him while reading some of this he came off to me as a crackpot. I really hope AI doesn't have its Robert Malone.

[post_below]

I had the same impression. He says things which are demonstrably untrue, it implies a lack of domain knowledge. But, on paper anyway, he has the domain knowledge.

I agree with the idea that the right time to decide how to handle AI is before it becomes extremely powerful. But he uses so much hyperbole, and what seems to me to be intentionally inflammatory language for purposes of creating fear.

It makes we want to take the cynical perspective that he's trying to cash in on fear to create a (valuable) following.

[ShredKazoo]

What's a specific demonstrably untrue claim which is made?

[mistermann]

> As a society, we have to decide how we feel about AI in legal and cultural contexts as we expand our capabilities, but there's time to do that.

How long will it take to learn how to make collective decisions though? There's "democracy" of course, but that has almost nothing to do with making group decisions.

[LinkLink]

I'm curious, what lead you to write such a thought and post it? In all genuine honesty I want to understand what you thought calling people worried about AI anti vaxxers and implying that because it will not cause nuclear holocaust, it must be safe would contribute to this discussion?

dead serious btw