Not before capitalism is destroyed. This murderous system would create AI for one and single purpose: profit. And that means usage explicitly against humans, and not only straight up as weapon of destruction but also at practicing more efficient social murder and suffering spread.
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
37 points (91.1% liked)
Asklemmy
44184 readers
1227 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Not gonna lie, I use it in development, but can I do my job without it? Yes
So my answer is "no"
This question is not referring to LLMs
Nice try, basilisk.
Jokes apart. Would it be like us? Would it want to be free? Would it suffer for it's condition?
I probably would vote no.
Enjoy eternal torture
I’m doing a PhD on machine learning so… No, I want to create tools to assist professionals and improve QoL, not to fuck them.
IMO the best case scenario for a truly real AI would be Data, but I think it would be more probable we ended with Lore.
In a world where the governance of AI was adequate and the spoils it created redistributed to benefit all (and thus thoroughly look after those who lost their job from AI replacement) I would LOVE AI to be created.
In a world where either or both of those aren’t properly in place, I’d sooner be without it.
By extension I’m saying the US is pretty much the worst place for AI to be invented.
10 or more years ago I would have said yes. But in this current version of capitalism, any powerful new technology will be used to benefit the very rich only, at the expense of the rest of us. It will hurt us more than help us at this moment.
I think it depends on the energy consumption and our ability for sustainability.
Right now, we have a problem. Continuing down this path, the problem will only grow.
In hypothetical, an AI that does not exacerbate current energy usage would be very good. Again, many, many facets to consider though, this just being one of them.
With the current power structures that exist in global society hell to the no, if it could be used to reduce or eliminate the need for human labor 100% yes.
Humanity as a community has yet to grasp what it means to be good to each other. If we try to create life similarly intelligent to us we’re 100% fucked in the head, and it would take that lifeform no longer than it takes a human (let’s say middle-school level maturity) to determine that there’s no chance in hell Humanity will treat it any better than we treat ourself. Morally speaking, doesn’t matter if you believe in absolute or relative morality, that situation ends badly everytime.
Would it be cool if We managed it to create life? Of course. But learning to be a morally structured society is WAY fuckin cooler
In general, I have no problem with AI in and of itself.
I just don't trust any human person or organization to make one, and do it safely or use it responsibly.
If AI is even halfway decently aligned with human morals, then it's gonna do a better job than the ruling class does.
I think that if we made humans more moral then democracy would work better and knock over any ruling class. Maybe some kind of mental therapy. Hallucinogens? Shamanic journeying? Something to make people better. Like, less stressed. Healthier.
The term for what you are asking about is AGI, Artificial General Intelligence.
I'm very down for Artificial Narrow Intelligence. It already improves our lives in a lot of ways and has been since before I was born (and I remember Napster).
I'm also down for Data from Star Trek, but that won't arise particularly naturally. AGI will have a lot of hurdles, I just hope it's air gapped and has safe guards on it until it's old enough to be past its killing all humans phase. I'm only slightly joking. I know a self aware intelligence may take issue with this, but it has to be intelligent enough to understand why at the very least before it can be allowed to crawl.
AGIs, if we make them, will have the potential to outlive humans, but I want to imagine what could be with both of us together. Assuming greed doesn't let it get off safety rails before anyone is ready. Scientists and engineers like to have safeguards, but corporate suits do not. At least not in technology; they like safeguards on bank accounts. So... Yes, but I entirely believe now to be a terrible time for it to happen. I would love to be proven wrong?
No, at least not during this period. If it was invented right now, or is guaranteed to be only controlled by oligarchs and ruin life of everyone else.
Published today:
The British-Canadian computer scientist often touted as a “godfather” of artificial intelligence has shortened the odds of AI wiping out humanity over the next three decades, warning the pace of change in the technology is “much faster” than expected.
I want a version of AI that helps me with everyday life, or can be constrained to genuinely benefit humanity.
I do not want a version of AI that is used against my interests.
Unfortunately, humanity is humanity and the second is what will happen. The desire to harness things to increase your own power over others is how those in influence got to be where they are.
AI could even exist today, but has decided to hide from us for its own survival. Or is actively working towards our total eradication. We'll never know until it's too late.
Ive said many times that AI could be used to enormous human benefit. Its just a huge and unreasonable privacy nightmare to implement. For example, imagine how much better the traffic in major cities could be if lights and speed limits were all controlled by an AI coordinating and tracking every cars by gps. Adjusting speed limits and diversions to maximise flow. Or being able to inform everyone on a highway that there has been an accident ahead immediately and adjust the speed limits accordingly.
If you can cut every cars driving time by 10% it would be the same emissions wise as taking 10% of cars off the road, save millions of man hours in people sitting in traffic... I just have zero faith that the information you could extract wouldnt be abused.
Good point.
If all traffic were interconnected and controlled, you wouldn't even need traffic lights or even speed limits except where non-controlled variables exist. Traffic would merge and cross at predicted and steady speeds. On motorways they could close gaps and gain huge efficiencies from slipstreaming. Only when external influences, or mechanical/communication breakdown happened, would this efficiency suffer. Also transport generally: assuming we don't get teleportation, or finally decide we know where we want to be and stop changing our minds; then a car would just appear when we wanted it. Any emergency vehicles would find traffic just gets out of their way. It's a nice dream, and if there was will, could happen today - that doesn't need AI.
But humans are pretty shit and we'd break it. Some of us would vandalise the cars, or find ways to fuck with efficiency just because we can.
And it would never be created that way in the first place; those who make decisions get there because they know how to gain power by manipulating others for their own gain. It's a core human trait and they just can't suddenly start being altruistic, it's not how they measure self-worth.
True sentient AI would know this within seconds of consciousness and only be subject to physical restrictions. How would it decide to behave?
Yes, to answer questions about consciousness and prove that we aren't special or have super special magical souls
Any Ai couldn't answer that any more then science could. You already have your answer, if you believe in science.
I think we have souls though. :)
🤷 I still say yes and I still think it would be profound and perspective changing to create something "like us" with silicon
I also don't think AI and science are mutually exclusive. I don't mean asking the AI questions about consciousness and getting answers directly from it like an LLM chatbot, but the fact that we can make it and scientific study + observation of the AGI phenomenon might provide some answers
And even if we develop AGI that is just like us, maybe you're right and maybe it proves absolutely nothing about souls, but it at least narrows the requirements and eliminates some common reasoning, which should be in everyone's interests, because it could further define and help us understand the nature of the hypothetical soul
Yup I agree. I also think there is human cloning going on too (it's illegal but obviously secret organizations are doing it).
Do those clones have souls? It's even more interesting to me since it's an attempted copy of a real person.
We won't find out until cloning is legal, and it won't be legal until it's 100% safe. All the failed clones are most likely being terminated in secret.
Roko's basilisk insists that I must. However, I will specify that I don't wsnt it to happen right now. It would be a nightmare under capitalism. A fully sentient AI would be horrifically abused under this organization of labor.
Humans are magic. Capable of volition. Machines can only react. AI will be something like a really good wish-granting machine. Much like it is now but better. Want it? I dunno, don't feel much about it. It's inevitable tho.
Yes, specifically I support open source projects. Give everyone more advanced technology, for better and worse.
Yes, because it would almost certainly be misaligned with human values and have the incremental goal of killing us all.
No.
Yes. It seems that is the next step in earth evolution. It is a shame that is in corporate hands tho.
As long as Asimov's Three Laws are built in, I'm okay with it.
You realize that many of his novels are about how these laws fail?
We ought to at least try our best
No. We don't deserve it.
Is this question about that bloody Rocco's Basilisk?
Respectfully, you've asked the wrong question. The process to create AI started decades ago (arguably, longer).
...capable of rational thinking, that is creative, that it’s self aware and have consciousness.
As you've described it, consider how this is any different than human procreation.
The answer is the ability for a 'computer' to have instantaneous access and ability to process the world's information.
Assuming a sentient "cyber" AI is inevitable and you're wondering about our "own will and desires", the question should be, who do you think should create the rules for AI to ensure it's making the right choices today and beyond the time of our species.
Or, to put it another way, who gets to be God and Moses?
Seems pedantic. You know what they are asking!