![It’s just great marketing [Smooth Dunk]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/38712211-1ccc-4657-a843-68432e5ca069.jpeg){kind=link}
Smooth Dunk | Bluesky
Transcript
3 panel comic
Panel 1: Red Guy in t-shirt is sitting at a desk being interviewed. He says “AI is going to kill us all”
Panel 2: Interviewer looking directly into camera, says “Well, we’ve heard from the anti-Ai guy. Now let’s hear from the CEO of AI
Panel 3: Wide shot revealing the second interviewee looking slightly confused. He says “I’m the Anti-AI guy”
I think the danger is very real but they don’t care, that’s why tech CEOs should be stopped at any cost.
The real danger is the pollution, energy costs, and the fact that everyone who uses the technology rapidly atrophies their cognitive abilities. It’s also dangerous that this automated hacking software is being unleashed without proper monitoring by the extremely negligent and cognitively atrophied humans who built it.
I get the message because people that’s not associated with those CEO are saying that, but cmon, humanity ending? Like, how?
Increasing climate change and causing local climate destruction?
Accelerating something people (Capitalism) was already doing isn’t the same as “AI will kill us all”.
The warning isn’t “AI will help us do everything that we were already doing, which will kill us all”.
AI will increase climate change because it’s not running on green energy and it’s polluting too much. Just like most cars, and most countries, and most factories, and most power plants.
that won’t end humanity, it will just make it much more expensive to live.
One of the possible answers to the Fermi paradox is the idea of the great filter, a thing that all forms of life have to go trough that eliminates most or all of them before they can become a space faring civilization, it could be things like the evolution of the mitochondria, but also it could be that all sapient civilizations develop a technology that is so obvious that all civilizations develop it and so risky that it inevitably ends in their destruction.
There are some main candidates as in what this technology could be, but by far the best candidate that has ever existed is AI.
It is a little hard to see any actually happening, but I could imagine several scenarios:
If it didn’t take nation-state level resources to build a nuke-level threat, easy to see how a few wackos could end us all. Could be bombs with less materials, bio-weapons, grey goo, whatever.
Presumably existing nuclear arsenals are well secured, but doesn’t seem beyond belief to imagine a hole that a persistent bot swarm could crack open.
We’re a ways away from sticking frontier models into small computers, but the push for robots is there. Once they have bodies in the real world, the limits are off for what harm they can cause. All the same unintended cyber attacks we’re getting from test environments now will then become physical harm, and with enough resources you could see it getting dire.
Typing those out though, does make me see how farfetch’d they kind of are. Which is good! I’d be all for it if the doomsday stuff turns out to be a big nothing.
Having means still doesn’t automatically confer motivation.
All of these scenarios overlook that it’s built from what people say online. There’s just as much chance that an AI would decide to save the planet. How much has been written against tech billionaires?
How much has been written about climate change?
Why wouldn’t AI share our concerns if it’s trained on them?
Have we considered that when tech billionaires say “AI will kill us”… They mean THEM. They might be seeing AI reflect instructions against billionaires that we’ve already embedded into the discourse? That we’ve written in comments and articles and blogs across the Internet?
It took 8 months after blacklisting Anthropic for the Pentagon to stop using Claude, as an example of how embedded AI has become in a few years. The Skynet scenario is very much on the table. But that’s the crust on the layer-cake of possible disaster scenarios. I dunno about humanity-ending, but wide-scale disaster could happen in a lot of less dramatic ways just from system disruptions.
But how is this different from when the H-bomb came out, or how people felt about the automobile? They thought going too fast would kill the occupants.
People have repeatedly warned that women’s rights would end society.
We’re VERY prone to claiming new technology will kill everyone.
To be fair, the atom bombs still might, and automobiles do kill over a million people a year. But you’re right, we have a tendency to catastrophize when it comes to new tech. That said, I still think this tech is different. Or perhaps more accurately, it comes with a hybrid of up and down sides that we haven’t really dealt with before. To be clear, I don’t think we’re going extinct. Man, I got into a sentence structure rhythm there, huh?
According to studies cited on Wikipedia, an all out nuclear war between Russia and the US (all warheads launched), would (after all effects had past), still leave 3 billion people alive on earth.
Most of the deaths would be in the Northern Hemisphere as that’s where all the nuclear nations live.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Recent_modeling
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KzpIsjgapAk
Trains went just as fast as early cars
No, it’s not.
What makes you say that? Other than the time travel, of course.
It’s fiction. Nothing in fiction is ever complex enough to accurately convey a real life situation. Doing so ignores many important aspects of the latter for no good reason.
Llms aren’t sentient and never will be. Any catastrophe that comes about through the use of these programs is due to the intent or negligence of the human using it. Saying that’s identical to a fictional robot uprising against humanity is foolish and only serves to legitimize the lies being spread to enrich the people pushing them.