Comments
[deleted] t1_j9xfpqw wrote
[removed]
RandomBitFry t1_j9xgwmc wrote
We're nowhere near true AI yet but we're already seeing how chatGPT is being regulated into an irritating politically correct state. You can't even talk to it about pants or toilets without it shutting down and mumbling something about vulgarity.
[deleted] t1_j9xhai8 wrote
[removed]
TarantinoFan23 t1_j9yloy1 wrote
I predict that things will stay mostly the same. AI can't feed starving children.
jfb1337 t1_j9zdqky wrote
A lot of AI experts predict around a 10% chance of an AI superintellegence causing humanity's extinction within the century.
But of course no one is going to stop working on AI. It's too profitable.
jfb1337 t1_j9ze5ss wrote
Why not? Humans could feed starving children. We have the food. It's just expensive to get the food to where it needs to be. AI could find ways to make that more efficient.
Of course that depends on whether the rich people who own AI actually want to use it to feed starving children, but that's an entirely separate question to whether it's possible.
BillHicksScream t1_j9zikm3 wrote
Why would you say that? My experience online is delightful. You should join us in the MetaMuskVerse. Its whats best. Everyone is doing it.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j9ziyvm wrote
Rich people becoming nice suddenly? Nah, AI will not change the power structure. The people in charge will not allow AI to change anything in a meaningful way. So, i stand by my assertion that tjing won't change.
jfb1337 t1_j9zjl89 wrote
That's a decent arguement against the idea of AI making the world substantially better. But that's not to say things won't change - there are a lot of ways AI could make the world worse.
QualityKoalaTeacher OP t1_j9zkdmh wrote
The power structure can certainly change if AI was implemented into politics having majority vote rule for example
TarantinoFan23 t1_j9zkro7 wrote
That seems extremely unlikely. There is no way for this to even begin to happen.
QualityKoalaTeacher OP t1_j9zqgsf wrote
You’re probably right but if anyone could figure it out it would likely be AI itself
jfb1337 t1_ja01rl4 wrote
Making a hypothetical very powerful AI safe is a pretty difficult problem. Implementing it with a rule of "do whatever the majority of humans vote for" isn't the worst idea possible.
RiC_David t1_ja38rv1 wrote
Because it's an amalgamation of the views and philosophies of actual people, thus it will always be subjective.
What you call political correctness is just what you'd call truth if you agreed with any given issue.
How could it possibly be impartial and objective on man made concepts?
Showerthoughts_Mod t1_j9xcl0u wrote
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.