[muldvarp]

There are many technologies that have not been a net positive for humanity. Leaded gasoline comes to mind immediately. For many other technologies it is also hard to determine because counterfactuals are hard to reason about.

Even then past performance is not an indicator of future results. Just because you think internal combustion engines were a great invention, doesn't mean AI cannot be bad for humanity.

[Marha01]

I wouldn't say that leaded gasoline is a great technology like AI, it's a pretty niche tech. Gasoline in general is comparable to AI, and the pros of that outweight the cons. Modern civilization would be impossible without gasoline.

>Even then past performance is not an indicator of future results.

It is not perfect or guaranteed, but it can definitely be an indicator. Technological progress is the main reason for the massive standard of living increases that we have witnessed in the last ~200 years. If someone wants to argue that this trend will stop or even reverse, they need very strong arguments, IMHO.

[miyoji]

> Gasoline in general is comparable to AI, and the pros of that outweight the cons.

This analogy is great, because your grandchildren will probably not consider gasoline to be a great technology, they'll consider it the thing that caused the wars and the famines.

[Marha01]

> This analogy is great, because your grandchildren will probably not consider gasoline to be a great technology, they'll consider it the thing that caused the wars and the famines.

They will also realize that industrial civilization enabled by gasoline was a necessary step towards the renewable energy utopia they are living in. Developing advanced technology takes a lot of energy.

[Alwayshasbeeb]

Nothing today indicates that they will be living in a renewable energy utopia. Solar panels and batteries getting cheaper is just not enough.

[Marha01]

It is, if they get cheap enough.

[muldvarp]

I suspect your reasoning is circular if you only consider "great" technologies.

[Marha01]

I am only considering great, consequential technologies because AI is such a great technology. Comparing it to some niche techs would result in false analogies.

[muldvarp]

Leaded gasoline to me is a very consequential technology given how much toxic lead it put into our environment.

Do you have an argument why "normal" technology can be good or bad, but "consequential" technology is always good?

[Marha01]

> Do you have an argument why "normal" technology can be good or bad, but "consequential" technology is always good?

Because consequential technology has many applications in diverse fields. And applications of technology are more often beneficial than harmful. So if the technology is broadly useful, in aggregate the beneficial applications will outweight the harmful ones.

[muldvarp]

By that definition gasoline would not classify as a consequential technology as it's almost exclusively used in a single application (transportation).

It also already assumes that the technology is more often benefical than harmful.

[docandrew]

We still use leaded gasoline (100LL) in prop airplanes today, for what it’s worth.

So it’s not clearly a net-negative technology.

[muldvarp]

The fact a technology is still in use does not imply that it is not negative for humanity.