>campaign of negativity against ai.

People are starting to panic, and few things bring out full blown idiocy and disregard for ground truth faster than widespread panic.

[delayed]

> if you are worried about AI then you got shockingly lucky with the lab leadership.

You must be joking. Altman is a sociopath, Amodei is either too stupid or too evil to stop working on tech he claims will have a 10% chance of destroying humanity (and in either case he should be imprisoned to protect the rest of us from him), and Musk is a man-child who will lash out at anyone and everything who dares to speak ill of him. There's absolutely nothing "lucky" about having these jokers in charge of stuff.

Other than Musk, the other two seem to me overall quite good stewards. Could have been much worse, and indeed hard to find someone better. How do you think someone could have been a better steward? There are 8 billion people in the world, almost all of them believe in absurd and mutually incompatible imaginary tales, its a very hard thing to create an information agent that doesn't offend a big fraction of the world.

I think it's pretty trivial to imagine ways in which they could've done better. For example, if you genuinely believe some tech has a 10% chance to destroy everyone alive, stop fucking developing it. There is no scenario where it is remotely acceptable to pursue such a risky goal. Amodei is either too stupid to see that, in which case he can't be trusted with anything sharper than a butter knife, or he's too evil to care about the risk, in which case he can't be trusted with anything at all. Or, more likely, he's lying to hype up his company, in which case he's a fraudster.

It's similarly easy to come up with "what Altman should do better". The dude is a genuine sociopath in charge of a company trying to make everyone's lives worse off in order to enrich him and his investors. It doesn't get much worse behaved than that.

If you impute its bog standard marketing/hyping, its the least evil and most mundane possible things you can expect in owners of such powerful tech. Your imagination is weak. Imagine if the owner was a Christian nationalist or Muslim fundamentalist as some examples.

It's hard not to be when people at those labs talk about the probability of AI killing us all, and if it doesn't do that, then the massive disruption to the labor market that's coming. Combine that with the techno feudalist ideology of leadership.

So yeah, I'm negative against their development of AI along with the general public, and for good reason it would seem.

Also, I don't want super intelligence. I want humans to remain in control. Why are they trying to build something to replace humanity? Why don't we got a vote in this? All 8 billion of us not developing frontier models with the expressed goal of achieving AGI followed closely by ASI.

We didn't get a say in whether we should bet our entire economy on building out infrastructure for half a dozen guys to get rich from. No say in the way they are backdooring around the hamstrung EPA to install greenhouse gas machines to power these things. I think the pushback makes sense.

It's a pity because as computer scientists this should have been such a fun technological moment for us. What a cool thing to experiment and explore new open doors with. But instead it was immediately the driver of mass job loss, societal upheaval, and a double digit percent chance of ending humanity, espoused by the AI lords themselves.

> Why are they trying to build something to replace humanity?

The list of possible reasons is pretty short and mostly not really good for most of us, as far as I see it

Why do you want to block people who are open to the idea of becoming transhuman/hybrids? Let it play out and see whose society turns out better.

Do that without dragging the rest of us into it then. I will continue to vote to block and advocate against such a thing on a societal level. It should not be thrust upon humanity without our consent.

Why the fuck should your fucking opinion matter to what I or someone else does in their private property? Why don't you subject your own private property to a vote for everything? You are evil and want to destroy communities because you didn't ask the community before changing a light in your room.

> Also, I don't want super intelligence.

I do. Quite a lot of people do. And that is because we believe it will lead to a better life for most humans.

I don't think you're anywhere close to a voting majority. Rather quite a small minority of the human population would want such a thing is my guess. It may seem otherwise in your bubble though.

Why would you believe that?