381–390 of 548 posts
Given how my past couple of days have gone at work, I don't like the sound of a 30 year old product manager obsessed with metrics of viral usage. Ageism aside, I think it takes a lot of experience, than pure intellect and professional success to drive a very emergent technology with unknown potential. You can break a lot by moving fast.
It takes fresh minds not to think about the collective impact of their actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People see that the danger will grow exponentially. Trying to fix the problems of obesity and cars now that they're deeply rooted global issues and have been for decades is hard. AI is still new. We can limit the damage before it's too late.
> We can limit the damage before it's too late. Maybe we should begin by waiting to see the scale of said so-called damage. Right now, there have maybe been a few incidents, but there are no real rates on "oh x people kill themselves a year from ai" and as long as x is still that, an unknown variable, it would be foolish to speed through limiting everybody for what can be just a few people.
>Trying to fix the problems _____ now that they're deeply rooted global issues and have been for decades is hard
The number of people that are already getting out of touch with AI is high. And we know that people have all kinds screwed up behaviors around things like cults. It's not hard to see that yes, AI is and will cause more problems around this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the coconut industry had trillions of dollars behind advocating placing coconuts above everyone’s beds and chairs, I think more people would be complaining about that.
The auto industry has trillions of dollars spent giving everyone cars, and we don't really dwell much on road safety. And cars kill a crazy number of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read journalism about why women are frustrated with dating today, one of the number-one complaints is that the men they are meeting are “flaky”, women can’t trust that the man will be there for her. Your depiction that “women don’t really need men” completely misses the current trend that this thread is about.
I never said women don't need men, did I? Let me read what I said again. No, I never said that. I said women need safety, and society is largely not safe for them. Human beings are social creatures. Women need men. Women need women. Men need women. Men need men. We all need each other. The system patterns of online dating cultivate undesirable traits in both men and women which result in side effects that no one woul…
Again, this is probably an outcome of modernity. I likely wouldn’t think this way as a man, if I didn’t grow up in a modern age hearing that women are strong, they can take care of themselves and no longer depend on men.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you know that 5% of all deaths in Canada is by elective suicide?
One could argue that number should be close to 100%, as people would live to old age where eventually the body is just too worn to continue a good life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In real dating apps, the ratio is never 1:1, there's always way more men. The "problem" will arise anyway, of course, but as I said, it's a different problem - the women aren't struggling to find dates, they're just choosing not to date the men they find. Even classifying it as a "problem" is arguable.
What else do you expect them to do if none of the choices are worthwhile?
It surprises me how hyper focused people are on AI risk when we’ve grown numb to the millions of preventable deaths that happen every year. 8 million people to smoking. 4 million to obesity. 2.6 million to alcohol. 2.5 million to healthcare. 1.2 million to cars. Hell even coconuts kill 150 people per year. It is tragic that people have lost their mind or their life to AI, and it should be prevented. But those using t…
The 1990’s saw one of the most effective smoking cessation campaigns in the world here in the US. There have been numerous case studies on it. It is clearly something we are working on and addressing (not just in the US)
* 4 million to obesity.
Obesity has been widely studied and identified as a major issue and is something doctors and beyond have been trying to help people with. You can’t just ban obesity, and clearly their efforts being made to understand it and help people.
* 2.6 million to alcohol
Plenty of studies and discussion and campaigns to deal with alcoholism and related issues, many of which have been successful, such as DUI laws.
* 2.5 million to healthcare
A complex issue that is in the limelight and several countries have attempted to tackle to vary degrees of success.
* 1.2 million to cars
Probably the most valid one on the list and one that I also agree is under addressed. However, there are numerous studies and discussions going on.
So let’s get back to AI and away from “what about…”: why is there so much resistance (like you seem to be putting up) to any study or discussion of the harmful effects of LLM’s, such as AI-induced psychosis?
It surprises me how hyper focused people are on AI risk when we’ve grown numb to the millions of preventable deaths that happen every year. 8 million people to smoking. 4 million to obesity. 2.6 million to alcohol. 2.5 million to healthcare. 1.2 million to cars. Hell even coconuts kill 150 people per year. It is tragic that people have lost their mind or their life to AI, and it should be prevented. But those using t…
> It surprises me how hyper focused people are on AI risk when we’ve grown numb to the millions of preventable deaths that happen every year. Companies are bombarding us with AI in every piece of media they can, obviously with a bias on the positive. This focus is an expected counterresponse to said pressure, and it is actually good that we're not just focusing on what they want us to hear (i.e. just the pros and not…
I.e. "yeah, I heard many counters to all of the AI positivity but it just seemed to be people screaming back with whatever they could rather than any impactful counterarguments" is a much worse situation because you've lost the wonder "is it really so positive" by not taking the time to bring up the most meaningful negatives when responding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We can limit the damage before it's too late. Maybe we should begin by waiting to see the scale of said so-called damage. Right now, there have maybe been a few incidents, but there are no real rates on "oh x people kill themselves a year from ai" and as long as x is still that, an unknown variable, it would be foolish to speed through limiting everybody for what can be just a few people.
It's like you didn't even read their statement... >Trying to fix the problems _____ now that they're deeply rooted global issues and have been for decades is hard The number of people that are already getting out of touch with AI is high. And we know that people have all kinds screwed up behaviors around things like cults. It's not hard to see that yes, AI is and will cause more problems around this.