11–20 of 230 posts
> Here's one theory.
But the author never gets back to this! It's the main observation the theory has to account for; why don't we see other companies speak this way, if it's such an effective strategy for deflecting non-apocalyptic concerns?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true but in reality I think people are far more afraid of AI in terms of how it is being used in warfare and policing. Automatic target detection and deployment of drones, or even how it might simply make their role at work redundant etc
I am to be honest not sure what I am more scared. AI shaping warfare Vs. Using AI to justify outrageous warfare
would you like me to list the applicable sections of the Geneva convention?
So fear-mongering seems to be just a tool how to get attention and more customers.
Hey ma, I use very dangerous tool now. I am OG.
> It's a strange way for any company to talk about its own work. You don't hear McDonald's announcing that it's created a burger so terrifyingly delicious that it would be unethical to grill it for the public. > Here's one theory. But the author never gets back to this! It's the main observation the theory has to account for; why don't we see other companies speak this way, if it's such an effective strategy for defl…
Honestly we should have learned this claim from AI companies was purely fear-mongering back when GPT-2 was "too dangerous to release".
That's true but in reality I think people are far more afraid of AI in terms of how it is being used in warfare and policing. Automatic target detection and deployment of drones, or even how it might simply make their role at work redundant etc
I think the last one should be first on the list: regular people are afraid AI will negatively affect their economic security (i.e. knowledge and service workers will get the rust-belt factory worker treatment).
And the potential of giving knowledge and service workers the rust-belt factory worker treatment is exactly what makes Wall Street excited about AI and has the AI company leaders salivating about the profit they can make.
Warfare, policing, bio-engineered viruses are theoretical and far down the list.
Honestly we should have learned this claim from AI companies was purely fear-mongering back when GPT-2 was "too dangerous to release".
That's true but in reality I think people are far more afraid of AI in terms of how it is being used in warfare and policing. Automatic target detection and deployment of drones, or even how it might simply make their role at work redundant etc
AI industry insiders (including "safety" groups like ControlAI) talk about the dangers only in terms of its power: "Scheming", job loss, breaking containment, the New Cold War with China.
Critics outside the industry talk in terms of its lack of power: Inaccuracy, erroneous translation of user intent, failure to deliver on its promises and investment, environmental cost from the former, and ultimately the danger of people in power (e.g. law enforcement, military officials) treating its output as valid and unbiased, or simply laundering their wishes through it.
Lee Vinsel's criti-hype article nailed this 5 years ago, before we even had the chatbot economy we do now: https://sts-news.medium.com/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-cr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, it's the BBC and the article doesn't have any typical AI tells, where is this idea that it's AI written coming from???
I'm assuming it's possible that an AI can deduct the potential 3rd degree result from an article like this on the BBC. Not talking about the wording