This is not a question about if you think it is possible, or not.
This is a question about your own will and desires. If there was a vote and you had a ballot in your hand, what will you vote? Do you want Artificial Intelligence to exist, do you not, maybe do you not care?
Here I define Artificial Intelligence as something created by humans that is capable of rational thinking, that is creative, that it’s self aware and have consciousness. All that with the processing power of computers behind it.
As for the important question that would arise of “Who is creating this AI?”, I’m not that focused on the first AI created, as it’s supposed that with time multiple AI will be created by multiple entities. The question would be if you want this process to start or not.
Not before capitalism is destroyed. This murderous system would create AI for one and single purpose: profit. And that means usage explicitly against humans, and not only straight up as weapon of destruction but also at practicing more efficient social murder and suffering spread.
Not gonna lie, I use it in development, but can I do my job without it? Yes
So my answer is “no”
This question is not referring to LLMs
Nice try, basilisk.
Jokes apart. Would it be like us? Would it want to be free? Would it suffer for it’s condition?
I probably would vote no.
Enjoy eternal torture
I’m doing a PhD on machine learning so… No, I want to create tools to assist professionals and improve QoL, not to fuck them.
IMO the best case scenario for a truly real AI would be Data, but I think it would be more probable we ended with Lore.
In a world where the governance of AI was adequate and the spoils it created redistributed to benefit all (and thus thoroughly look after those who lost their job from AI replacement) I would LOVE AI to be created.
In a world where either or both of those aren’t properly in place, I’d sooner be without it.
By extension I’m saying the US is pretty much the worst place for AI to be invented.
I think it depends on the energy consumption and our ability for sustainability.
Right now, we have a problem. Continuing down this path, the problem will only grow.
In hypothetical, an AI that does not exacerbate current energy usage would be very good. Again, many, many facets to consider though, this just being one of them.
10 or more years ago I would have said yes. But in this current version of capitalism, any powerful new technology will be used to benefit the very rich only, at the expense of the rest of us. It will hurt us more than help us at this moment.
Humanity as a community has yet to grasp what it means to be good to each other. If we try to create life similarly intelligent to us we’re 100% fucked in the head, and it would take that lifeform no longer than it takes a human (let’s say middle-school level maturity) to determine that there’s no chance in hell Humanity will treat it any better than we treat ourself. Morally speaking, doesn’t matter if you believe in absolute or relative morality, that situation ends badly everytime.
Would it be cool if We managed it to create life? Of course. But learning to be a morally structured society is WAY fuckin cooler
With the current power structures that exist in global society hell to the no, if it could be used to reduce or eliminate the need for human labor 100% yes.
No, at least not during this period. If it was invented right now, or is guaranteed to be only controlled by oligarchs and ruin life of everyone else.
The AI Shall Be Nazified
In general, I have no problem with AI in and of itself.
I just don’t trust any human person or organization to make one, and do it safely or use it responsibly.
If AI is even halfway decently aligned with human morals, then it’s gonna do a better job than the ruling class does.
I think that if we made humans more moral then democracy would work better and knock over any ruling class. Maybe some kind of mental therapy. Hallucinogens? Shamanic journeying? Something to make people better. Like, less stressed. Healthier.
Published today:
The British-Canadian computer scientist often touted as a “godfather” of artificial intelligence has shortened the odds of AI wiping out humanity over the next three decades, warning the pace of change in the technology is “much faster” than expected.
The term for what you are asking about is AGI, Artificial General Intelligence.
I’m very down for Artificial Narrow Intelligence. It already improves our lives in a lot of ways and has been since before I was born (and I remember Napster).
I’m also down for Data from Star Trek, but that won’t arise particularly naturally. AGI will have a lot of hurdles, I just hope it’s air gapped and has safe guards on it until it’s old enough to be past its killing all humans phase. I’m only slightly joking. I know a self aware intelligence may take issue with this, but it has to be intelligent enough to understand why at the very least before it can be allowed to crawl.
AGIs, if we make them, will have the potential to outlive humans, but I want to imagine what could be with both of us together. Assuming greed doesn’t let it get off safety rails before anyone is ready. Scientists and engineers like to have safeguards, but corporate suits do not. At least not in technology; they like safeguards on bank accounts. So… Yes, but I entirely believe now to be a terrible time for it to happen. I would love to be proven wrong?
No. I want an AI thats capable of thinking and nothing else. I want it to find cures for diseases or solutions to problems or to act as an assistant to the user. I dont want it to have feelings, desires, instincts, sentience, emotions etc.
Humanity is already too good at solving its own diseases; our single biggest problem is overpopulation.
If AI solves Cancer or Heart Disease tomorrow, we’ll continue outbreeding our environment. If AI somehow solves Global Warming and food shortage, history has shown that we’ll find some other way to hurt ourselves. It can’t stop humans being bloody stupid and working against their own interests, unfortunately.
our single biggest problem is overpopulation.
Alright Malthus, how’s 1802 doing? Anyway you don’t need to worry about your theories anymore, they’ve been pretty thoroughly debunked by reality.
Oh, and this popped into my feed, which seems to show I’m not the only pessimistic one.
The British-Canadian computer scientist often touted as a “godfather” of artificial intelligence has shortened the odds of AI wiping out humanity over the next three decades, warning the pace of change in the technology is “much faster” than expected.
Nice links but I don’t agree that it will be like that.
Whilst I’ve been alive - some fifty-odd years, the population of the world has doubled. The growth is exponential and we’ve achieved much in terms of improving the life expectancy (67 for men then, 82 now). Infant mortality is also less. Smallpox eradicated, better healthcare globally - etc etc. We’ve got good at living longer - even when a global pandemic happens, it doesn’t even make a /dent/ in that population, unlike Spanish Flu. Quality of life in most countries is better than it was.
So why do I still think it’s a problem? Because people don’t get on well together and the world is less stable than it was. Politics, greed, pollution, media stirring up hate, tribalism, religion, jealousy and so on. More people bring more problems, economic migration is causing large movement of peoples around the world, and humans don’t suddenly start playing nice together because there’s more of them. Look at America’s recently announce reneging on agreed environmental policy and they’re not the only ones continuing to invest in oil against a clear human benefit.
Are we happier than we were 50 years ago, for all these improvement? I don’t think we are, by any measure.
The UN predicts the population will stop growing at 10.3bn in the mid 2080s. It’s just a prediction and a rather optimistic one, and the UN is prone to painting a rose-tinted picture. The truth is unknowable.
