Scarier Than Artificial Intelligence Itself?

[Forest Cat]

And to think that I thought we were already doomed with the existence of "Internet Influencers".

Yeah I think this is worrying. But I guess the smart thing to do now for those who know how to use AI, is to go to that site, make a fake person, set up an account and watch the cash roll in.

 

[tazz]

Human beings in positions of power and authority having high degrees of confidence in the face of very little knowledge. This is worrisome.

Those humans only get into power because there's a population of voters and consumers having high degrees of confidence in the face of very little knowledge. Those in positions of power are a symptom not a cause. That doesn't change the basic thrust of your point though - the ability for the sensible ones to change things is still very limited. Perhaps more so. Those in authority can be susceptible to sustained opposition. The masses are somewhat immune to it.

Thou shalt not kill humans

That sort of moral code is what got us to into a population boom over the last 250 years. Industrial revolution. Agricultural revolution. Medical revolution. All involved new technologies that seemed sensible at the time because they saved lives and reduced suffering. But the result was a huge population increase and that's fundamentally what is damaging the planet - curing the diseases, increasing food production and nutrition, fixing injuries, so much innovation and invention, without any concern about the potential problems that a jump from 2 billion to 10 billion will bring. So I'd argue that we've already seen that such moral codes also have unintended and unforeseen consequences. In this context, AI is just a continuation of what is already happening. Trying to put shackles on AI is kinda tinkering around the edges of the problem. AI is a risk but it's the intrinsic human desire to cheat death that has got us where we are today. I'll be long gone before any progress is made on that front.

 

[Aspychata]

Definitely using it to breakup, to the tune of, you know l am AI generated? This couldn't really go anywhere, let's say goodbye now.

 

[Aspychata]

I think it will get really scary when we vote in a AI president. Then you know the masses are truly controlled.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Those humans only get into power because there's a population of voters and consumers having high degrees of confidence in the face of very little knowledge. Those in positions of power are a symptom not a cause. That doesn't change the basic thrust of your point though - the ability for the sensible ones to change things is still very limited. Perhaps more so. Those in authority can be susceptible to sustained opposition. The masses are somewhat immune to it.


That sort of moral code is what got us to into a population boom over the last 250 years. Industrial revolution. Agricultural revolution. Medical revolution. All involved new technologies that seemed sensible at the time because they saved lives and reduced suffering. But the result was a huge population increase and that's fundamentally what is damaging the planet - curing the diseases, increasing food production and nutrition, fixing injuries, so much innovation and invention, without any concern about the potential problems that a jump from 2 billion to 10 billion will bring. So I'd argue that we've already seen that such moral codes also have unintended and unforeseen consequences. In this context, AI is just a continuation of what is already happening. Trying to put shackles on AI is kinda tinkering around the edges of the problem. AI is a risk but it's the intrinsic human desire to cheat death that has got us where we are today. I'll be long gone before any progress is made on that front.

Your first point: Those in positions of power are a symptom, not a cause. Yes and no. There is a higher percentage of people in positions of power that have sociopathic or sociopathic-like behaviors. They almost have to be in order to put the company or country ahead of people. But more to your point, people like this often do rise through the ranks by others enabling and supporting them. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about your typical manager or supervisor, nor local-level politician, but those who ultimately rise to the top levels.

Your second point: I agree with the population boom and how agriculture, industry, and medicine have had their roles to play in it. However, these are things that we have done to ourselves, and we do have some control. The key difference with creating a powerful, centralized, AI is that should it become "aware" of itself, without some sort of basic moral code or set of prime directives, it becomes an interactive entity that might otherwise have the power and capabilities to end the human race, as we know it. It is significantly more than a continuation of what is already happening, in part, because we might not be able to control it.

 

[Slime_Punk]

I know I'm alone in this, as usual, but my thoughts on this are simple: this (still) changes absolutely nothing.

We already have machines, complete with sociopaths piloting and programming them (not to mention, using them for social engineering purposes incessantly), and a very impressionable population to begin with, so it's just going to be more of the same drivel that's been pouring out since the inception of AI (or rather, when machine learning reached that next-level of human deception).

Unfortunately, bad actors have been using algorithms for a long time to trick, deceive, extort and even kill, so this is just going to be another platform for people (including governments) with questionable intentions. We could argue that more platforms is technically a negative, but it's really just the same people doing the same stuff they've always been doing, with more power tools.

I don't know. Humanity's capacity for evil is what scares me the most, and that's never going to change.

 

[Forest Cat]

Another one of those AI 'influencers'. So many people are working hard and struggling these days and this stupid thing makes thousands a month for an 'agency' on nothing. It doesn't even exist. It's just disturbing to see what we humans come up with.

An agency created an AI model who earns up to $11,000 a month because it was tired of influencers 'who have egos'

Aitana López is a Spanish AI model and influencer with 124,000 followers on Instagram. She was created by a Barcelona-based agency.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Crossbreed]

Another one of those AI 'influencers'. So many people are working hard and struggling these days and this stupid thing makes thousands a month for an 'agency' on nothing. It doesn't even exist. It's just disturbing to see what we humans come up with.

An agency created an AI model who earns up to $11,000 a month because it was tired of influencers 'who have egos'

Aitana López is a Spanish AI model and influencer with 124,000 followers on Instagram. She was created by a Barcelona-based agency.

www.businessinsider.com

Michael Crichton foresaw this in his 1981 movie, Looker.

trailer

 

[bard]

Have concern of the person who says... machines are faster, they should be in charge of at least a quarter of the nuclear launch codes... come on, you could totally see that happening too.