sc94597 said:
Who is "we"? I can guarantee you that people actually doing AI research do think about these topics all of the time. The logical conclusion of your argument here is that all technological and scientific advancements have the potential to lead us to our destruction if we expand the timeline far enough and therefore we should stop making any of them. Afterall, when 19th century physicists were studying the ultraviolet catastrophe they couldn't have predicted that the physics that resolved it (Quantum Mechanics and Nuclear Physics) would eventually lead to the invention of nuclear bombs. It is nonsensical to anybody who isn't an anarcho-primitivist. You become concerned about x-risks when there is sufficient evidence that they exist, not because at some indeterminate future they might exist but you can't explain why the current technology leads there. |
"We" as in we who are having this discussion on the forum?
There is billions, likely soon to be trillions poured into an AI arms race with corporations in the hunt for who will create the most advanced version that can do the most things.
Nvidia's market cap is through the roof not because they're making gaming GPUs for nerds, it's because of all the AI orders they are getting.
I hope I am wrong on this, but I don't think am I and I am hardly the only person raising red flags about this.
Even if it never becomes sentient or smart enough to have the thought of "hey, these humans aren't so great and fairly easy to kill lets just do XYZ" ... even if it never comes to that, there is a extremely high probability that AI will begin to automate most jobs and that only will be a monstrous, global changing catastrophe.
Last edited by Soundwave - on 06 March 2024
