gt33m t1_j9ui6id wrote on February 24, 2023 at 5:30 PM

Reply to comment by terath in [D] To the ML researchers and practitioners here, do you worry about AI safety/alignment of the type Eliezer Yudkowsky describes? by SchmidhuberDidIt

This is eerily similar to the “guns don’t kill people” argument.

It should be undeniable that AI provides a next-generation tool to lower the cost of disruption for nefarious actors. That disruption can come in various forms - disinformation, cyber crime, fraud etc.

terath t1_j9x6v7k wrote on February 25, 2023 at 5:07 AM

My point is that you don’t need ai to hire a hundred people to manually spread propaganda. That’s been going on now for a few years. AI makes it cheaper yes but banning AI or restricting it in no way fixes it.

People are very enamoured with AI but seem to ignore the already many existing technological tools being used to disrupt things today.

gt33m t1_j9xapzz wrote on February 25, 2023 at 5:47 AM

Like I said this is similar to the guns argument. Banning guns does not stop people from Killing each other but easy access to guns amplifies the problem.

AI as a tool of automation is a force multiplier that is going to be indistinguishable from human action.

terath t1_j9xdc0i wrote on February 25, 2023 at 6:15 AM

AI has a great many positive uses. Guns not so much. It’s not a good comparison. Nuclear technology might be better, and I’m not for banning nuclear either.

gt33m t1_j9xfxid wrote on February 25, 2023 at 6:45 AM

Not certain where banning AI came into the discussion. It’s just not going to happen and I don’t see anyone proposing it. However, it shouldn’t be the other extreme either where everyone is running a nuclear plant in their backyard.

To draw parallels from your example, AI needs a lot of regulation, industry standards and careful handling. The current technology is still immature but if the right structures are not put in place now, it will be too late to put the genie back in the bottle later.