Something tells me these pricks will end up arguing for a reversion to thin-client compute. It is in their financial interest too after all.
Funny coincidence!
I can already see it. Just think of all the energy wasted training AI at home! I can imagine police drones with IR sensors scanning the cities for the heat signatures of illegal AI "farms".
Talking seriously, however they try to spin it, advanced AI (same as every other big scientific/engineering achievement) will be predominantly good. So let's say there is time when AI can create convincing videos of people engaging in various compromising "activities". When this becomes widespread it will give plausible deniability to any potential victim of such attack(with real or deep faked materials) .
In a world where any compromising video or picture can be made with anyone, the value of such materials for wannabee blackmailer diminishes rapidly. However, in a world where there is only few entities that can produce such materials and they do so sparingly those entities get a tool that gives them huge power (especially in democracies where popular opinion decides who governs).
They should start teaching the problem of induction in schools, evidently it's needed.
How about you present a counterargument - why would advanced AI be predominantly bad? Unless, of course, your only counterargument is the classic philosophical statement of "we can't know nuffin".
A bunch of arguments about why AI would be bad have already been advanced. For the economic one, refer to Martin Ford. For the existential one, refer to Bostrom.
No.
Either discuss this with me or don't. Don't summon your sacred scrolls to do the arguing for you.
> It is a logical fallacy
Instead of just parroting my stance in response, I'll try to elaborate some more. Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all.
Logic itself cannot bring you knowledge about the world, as the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit. All knowledge is based on induction, even your knowledge that induction is fallible. Saying induction is a "logical fallacy" doesn't even make sense, since the purpose of induction is not to perform logical operations.
I'll do whatever I want, especially when "communicating" (generous verb) with someone capable of writing the epitome of stupidity "the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit".
What a juvenile attitude. I wasn't giving you orders, I was presenting my standards of communication. You can do whatever the hell you want, but don't expect other people to tolerate your obnoxiousness.
You seem to get off on insulting people. I do not get off on being insulted, so I will refrain from further communication with you. Goodbye.
Basically no one who sticks around on here is “dumb”, I don’t know you but I have a Bayesian prior that you’re probably pretty fucking smart, and GP was being a bit of a smartass, C’est la vie.
I completely agree with your game plan of “let’s get a more substantial conversation going here”. It’s the right move.
I think that we probably should, as a society, do a serious audit of the public school system curriculum to see if it still makes sense in light of the insane rate of change in the facts of life over the last century :)
I do understand the fear of being sued or targeted in the media over misuse, though. The person misusing technology should (obviously imo) be held responsible for that, but since it's new tech, the tech will be taking the blame for the first really controversial cases of disinfo and/or harassment that utilize it.