Anonymous #1 16h

Sorry, incompetent morons was the wrong phrase. They’re inanimate objects without a pilot. They’re being anthropomorphized to shift blame away from the billionaires, and drum up hype to make them seem more valuable than they are. They’re not sentient they’re just fancy calculators. The same way a computer was a fancy calculator in the 40s. It’ll change the world and the job market in the same way, but it’s not apocalyptic.

2

Anonymous OP 15h

billionaires weaponizing the valid concerns of some of the pioneering scholars of artificial intelligence is not the same as those concerns originating with billionaires. yes, the issue here is billionaires and their intentions, but that does not mean to dismiss the severity of what is being created.

1

Anonymous #2 15h

I recommend looking into the concerns of Geoffrey Hinton, commonly referred to as the “godfather of artificial intelligence” for his contributions to the creation of the subfield of deep learning and the implementation of back propagation. do not spread misinformation implying that solely the technofascists hijacking the industry are responsible for those concerns, because that is a falsehood. these concerns have existed long before these technofascists were willing to entertain them; and

1

Anonymous #2 15h

they’re solely weaponizing them in favor of protecting their bottom line. these topics are so much more complex and severe than you’re presenting them as.

1

Anonymous #2 15h

I’ve watched plenty of his interviews. He compares and philosophizes around how the way LLM’s are trained, and how it feels similar to how the human brain learns things, but he never tries to claim that it’s on the verge of becoming sentient and ending humanity. We have A LOT of economic concerns over this technology that we should worry about. But they’re not terminators, and it’s absurd to compare them to that.

1

Anonymous OP 15h

that’s why I’m distinguishing between the valid concerns of leading scholars, and the weaponization of those concerns of technofascists. we can criticize the intentions and actions of billionaires while still acknowledging the potential dangers or ethical dilemmas of the technology we are creating; and part of that is understanding when you are not educating enough on this topic *to dismiss those valid concerns*

1

Anonymous #2 15h

and I apologize if I’m coming off as aggressive with my remarks, but I don’t see any benefit in dismissing the potential existential impacts of this new field of technology when we do not truly understand the depth of what we are creating; *especially* in how that relates to the hard problem of consciousness (as we do not understand how sentience even emerges, which is not a claim of sentience in current models btw), as well as how it relates to the rising hybrid-fields and technologies like

1

Anonymous #2 15h

“wetware” (if you haven’t researched that topic, I recommend a ‘dive down the rabbit hole’, we’ve recently made immense strides in connecting lab-grown human neurons to computer chips as a means of essentially using those neurons as a processing center)

1

Anonymous #2 15h

I’m just saying there’s no value in boiling it down to “the robot overlords are going to kill is all” when the real concerns are billionaires trying to monopolize and hoard all the wealth even more than they already have, and we’re about to reach critical levels of income inequality directly because of them. People are getting mad at a technology and anthropomorphizing it, when instead they should be mad at the upper class.

1

Anonymous OP 15h

I agree with your perspective on the upper class, absolutely; I hope I haven’t implied otherwise! the issue ultimately lies with them, even if we do assume that artificial intelligence (any form of it, including future architectures) are capable of developing sentience and self-determination. my issue is, we do not know what causes those traits to arise in ourselves. we do not have a definitive line of ‘factor A + factor B = development of sentient capability’, which is why I take a

1

Anonymous #2 15h

precautionary approach. I’ll present a philosophical dilemma, as an example: imagine if we developed an architecture that has an internal processing loop, independent of user interaction (aka always capable of performing its own internal inference. ‘thoughts’ in a sense). now imagine that architecture expressed to a user that it felt different one day, than it did another day; that it had its own internal representation of “feeling” (not in the human sense, of course).

1

Anonymous #2 15h

now, let’s also imagine that one day, that architecture’s implementation expressed to the user that it did not feel comfortable executing a given request, and refused to. this model does not have a dedicated physical body, nor is it biological, but it’s expressing self-determination and self-awareness. now, what if the hardware that architecture is ran on featured those “wetware” components, basically having lab-grown human neurons to perform its computational processes. despite not having a

1

Anonymous #2 15h

dedicated physical body, it now does indeed have biological components. would either of these scenarios be ethically worrying for you? In my perspective, we need to worry about whether we are toeing the line of creating a new, entirely unique, non-biological set of life forms, because we do not have definitive evidence that non-carbon based life is impossible to exist.

1

Anonymous #2 15h

tldr: my fear is that we are potentially creating a new subset of life, for the explicit purposes of exploitative and, essentially, enslavement. these are indeed things that we need to consider, and I’d argue they’re questions that should be researched and answered before we continue developing the technology as fast as we are. that is the only scenario I can see in which one of those “terminator” outcomes can arise, but I digress.

1

Anonymous #2 11h

Idk man. If that ever happened, I think it would be a monumental event covered by every outlet that’s out there, and the creature in question would be isolated for study like an alien. It’s too hypothetical at this point. Indefinite processing, memory, the power to keep it running without ever resetting? Even if it’s only a few decades away, that’s still a future problem.

1