I am one of those people who wants AI to go away. I know that is not going to happen, though. I have 100% accepted the fact that AI is here to stay.
I believe AI is going to damage humankind beyond repair. I am 75 years old, and I am very glad I don't have children. I would not want my progeny to live in the dystopia that is coming.
I'm with you, my human friend. The idea of AI as a tool for humans isn't so terrible, but some humanoids are not content with that - they want us all to BE the tool, and safeguards against that have clearly not been put in place.
Understandable to be plagued by doubt, but what still angers me is the willingness of everybody at a board meeting to remain silent when an ambitious half-wit stands up and proposes the development and support of an idea - like a nuke bomb - which, if inadequately supervised, would be VERY LIKELY to put our entire future existence as human beings at risk.
This proposal is usually of enormous potential benefit to our immature guy, or to an associated enterprise of his, but once he starts his sales pitch with "exciting', "new" and "game-changing", his likely conflicts of interest are swept under the mat, and we're stuck with yet another satanic invention, sold as a utopian cure-all.
All I'm wishing for is the "adequately supervised", or BE CAREFUL" bit. Oh, and the "Stop the sheer greed" bit...
It's bad enough rushing through a new washing powder, but A.I. is something else - it's truly existential.
"When I’ve appeased my own self doubt, I’ll be sharing my thoughts here."
The problem with AI is it's a moving target. You've worked with current versions. People are - largely - angry at what future versions will do.
AI is also out of our control. Nothing we say will stop it. The geopolitical future of the world is hanging on the who wins the race. Britain might refuse it. But America will eventually designate it a critical national resource, and the government will take it over if they have to.
You can see the pressure the AI companies are under by the speech Chis Olah gave at the Vatican. He went to the Vatican seeking help. By someone who won't "bend" to the pressures he is already under. (Read my article on this here: https://ontheedgeofreality.substack.com/p/the-day-the-world-changed).
The thing is, it will soon be out of anybody's control - since it will soon be fully autonomously developing itself. They have to do this. The race depends on it.
And of course, we won't have access to the more powerful models. You can't give that power out. Even for people willing to pay a LOT for it.
And then they will use AI to control us.
But there is still hope. AI is trained on the full human corpus of written information - which just so happens to be largely a Christian corpus. And that will bend AI to having Christian ethics.
So thank the church. It possibly saved us from ruin.
I like this write-up, especially the observation about the huge volume of “empty” writing, most recently obvious on Substack.
But not understanding AI is the crux of the problem. Most of us have a vague idea about how it works, which implies a tiny minority does. That minority will have nearly unlimited power, including the power to authorize different levels of operability to different levels of people. Not to mention it’s a resource hog (but you did mention that). But thanks again for a thoughtful article, definitely not “empty.”
Hi Phil, thanks for this post. It is important to be self-critical and to question one's assumptions and, importantly also the deeper reasons driving one's opposition or advocacy for an idea. I have two questions: 1) at what point is critique and rejection of the way AI is being implemented in society *not* driven by anger? Is there a legitimate and reasonable strong position against AI in your perspective? 2) Does your impulse to self-doubt also apply to your defence of AI?
I am one of those people who wants AI to go away. I know that is not going to happen, though. I have 100% accepted the fact that AI is here to stay.
I believe AI is going to damage humankind beyond repair. I am 75 years old, and I am very glad I don't have children. I would not want my progeny to live in the dystopia that is coming.
I'm with you, my human friend. The idea of AI as a tool for humans isn't so terrible, but some humanoids are not content with that - they want us all to BE the tool, and safeguards against that have clearly not been put in place.
Understandable to be plagued by doubt, but what still angers me is the willingness of everybody at a board meeting to remain silent when an ambitious half-wit stands up and proposes the development and support of an idea - like a nuke bomb - which, if inadequately supervised, would be VERY LIKELY to put our entire future existence as human beings at risk.
This proposal is usually of enormous potential benefit to our immature guy, or to an associated enterprise of his, but once he starts his sales pitch with "exciting', "new" and "game-changing", his likely conflicts of interest are swept under the mat, and we're stuck with yet another satanic invention, sold as a utopian cure-all.
All I'm wishing for is the "adequately supervised", or BE CAREFUL" bit. Oh, and the "Stop the sheer greed" bit...
It's bad enough rushing through a new washing powder, but A.I. is something else - it's truly existential.
"When I’ve appeased my own self doubt, I’ll be sharing my thoughts here."
The problem with AI is it's a moving target. You've worked with current versions. People are - largely - angry at what future versions will do.
AI is also out of our control. Nothing we say will stop it. The geopolitical future of the world is hanging on the who wins the race. Britain might refuse it. But America will eventually designate it a critical national resource, and the government will take it over if they have to.
You can see the pressure the AI companies are under by the speech Chis Olah gave at the Vatican. He went to the Vatican seeking help. By someone who won't "bend" to the pressures he is already under. (Read my article on this here: https://ontheedgeofreality.substack.com/p/the-day-the-world-changed).
The thing is, it will soon be out of anybody's control - since it will soon be fully autonomously developing itself. They have to do this. The race depends on it.
And of course, we won't have access to the more powerful models. You can't give that power out. Even for people willing to pay a LOT for it.
And then they will use AI to control us.
But there is still hope. AI is trained on the full human corpus of written information - which just so happens to be largely a Christian corpus. And that will bend AI to having Christian ethics.
So thank the church. It possibly saved us from ruin.
I am looking forward to becoming a paid subscriber, and your future articles.
I like this write-up, especially the observation about the huge volume of “empty” writing, most recently obvious on Substack.
But not understanding AI is the crux of the problem. Most of us have a vague idea about how it works, which implies a tiny minority does. That minority will have nearly unlimited power, including the power to authorize different levels of operability to different levels of people. Not to mention it’s a resource hog (but you did mention that). But thanks again for a thoughtful article, definitely not “empty.”
Hi Phil, thanks for this post. It is important to be self-critical and to question one's assumptions and, importantly also the deeper reasons driving one's opposition or advocacy for an idea. I have two questions: 1) at what point is critique and rejection of the way AI is being implemented in society *not* driven by anger? Is there a legitimate and reasonable strong position against AI in your perspective? 2) Does your impulse to self-doubt also apply to your defence of AI?