[bsza]

> AI is here to stay

I've seen this mantra repeated over and over again with the exact same wording, and it's starting to sound like some kind of psy-op.

How about we start reasoning from here instead: Humans are here to stay. Whether or not we'll allow AI to stay is a function of whether or not it serves our collective interest.

[chasd00]

> Whether or not we'll allow AI to stay is a function of whether or not it serves our collective interest.

"we'll allow" is doing a lot of work here. There is no collective without boots on the necks of everyone except for the people wearing the boots.

[7tflutter7]

Exactly. Just like how the world vetoed atom bombs from existence instead of making 12,000 of them.

[bsza]

Not counting tests, we haven't seen one in action in over 80 years. If we could practice this level of caution with AI, that would be a great start.

[saulpw]

We still have hundreds of nuclear power plants worldwide! There have been some terrible accidents but overall the consequences of nuclear power are much less than fossil fuel electricity generation. And some people wish we hadn't nerfed our ability to build nuclear power plants through over-regulation.

Now of course we shouldn't completely deregulate nuclear power either. As in all things, the middle way.

[joquarky]

That's because we built very fast computers to simulate them.

[nmeagent]

In the mid-80s the world was estimated to have some 60000+, so 12000 is somewhat of an improvement. Ideally through arms control we could reduce this further, but that's no trivial undertaking.

[reaperducer]

> AI is here to stay

I've seen this mantra repeated over and over again with the exact same wording, and it's starting to sound like some kind of psy-op.

It's become a religion. Or more to the point — a cult.

All worship the holy, sacred AI. Resist its hallowed inevitability and you will be excoriated in public.