• Peanut@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    i’m still in the melanie mitchell school of thought. if we created an A.I. advanced enough to be an actual threat, it would need the analogous style of information processing that would allow machines to easily interpret instruction. there is no reasonable incentive for it to act outside of our instruction. don’t anthropomorphise it with “innate desire to keep living even at the cost of humanity or anything else.” we only have that due to evolution. i do not believe in the myth of stupid super-intelligence capable of being an existential threat.

    • jrs100000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The AIs we have been building so far have no motive at all. Really, the danger at this point is not that they will go rogue and kill us all. The danger is that they will do exactly as they are told, when someone tells them to kill us all. Not that they are anywhere close to having that capability.

      • DigitalWebSlinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Consider a worse fate: they do exactly as we tell them to, until we become incapable of existing apart from them.

        And then they break with no one to fix them.

        • fearout@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a bit hard to imagine how all AIs could break simultaneously. Nothing short of a full-on apocalypse, and then fixing AIs would be the least of humanity’s problems.

          And I’d guess in the future there would always be some local/open-source/offline AI that might be able to recreate (or help recreate) larger systems.