Spot on. Or because of addictiveness. Or impact on democracy. Or ruining people's ability to focus on anything. Those attention grabbing algos havent been designed by non-technical people.
While I get the spirit of your message, advertising has been around for over a century, and I don’t believe it has done near the damage to society over that timespan that AI will likely do in a decade (if we’re not careful and responsible).
I also don’t believe addiction and other psychological exploits are used for the sole purpose of ad revenue. There are other more direct forms of monetization involved, such as microtransactions and subscriptions.
If you really want to blame something, it really all comes down to one word:
One hand you have proven damage. And if we are honest, the damage is way more than what has been proven; especially 2nd/3rd order which are easy to reason but hard to prove.
On the other hand you have pure speculation.
Not only that, AI has been immensely liberating/empowering for many ordinary people (That's why these AI companies have millions of users).
Advertising has become 'active', very recently in the overall lifespan of advertising. For most of it's lifespan it was passive, it blared out at you from the TV or radio or bus stop. Now, however, it's reaching out and taking pieces of you back for analysis and reconstruction, and on-selling to any other entity interested in doing the same.
The reason is greed, yes.
We can't regulate human greed, but we can regulate the manifestation of its symptoms.
We can also choose not to work towards expanding the capacity of said symptoms.
> We can also choose not to work towards expanding the capacity of said symptoms.
Not if we need to eat and raise our kids. Then we need careers, which depend on what everyone else is doing, so we can't stop, our own future depends on how competitive we remain in the new context. I see an idealist streak here, some kind of naive platonism that ignores everything runs at a cost and nothing executes for free like platonic heaven. We can't take decisions that contradict our own needs.
It's a shame so many people only resigned for ethical reasons once their employer's threat level progressed from exploitative to existential. Better late than never, but that does not excuse their tardiness.
I could have explained that better, but it was already getting too long.
Personally if I could Thanos-snap AI out of existence I would, but as long as it exists, it seems better on balance to make good use of it where possible than just try to ignore it.
"Focusing more on AI stuff" ... not really? Of course I was using AI a lot in my work at Google, as well as contributing to AI acceleration. Now I won't be contributing to acceleration and I can be as cautious as I want to be about using it.
Advertising has the appearance of representing an on-going revenue source for an increasing number of devices used in our daily lives by way of surveillance and creation of a picture of an individuals habits and psychology in order to manipulate said psychology to induce the individual to spend more money on literally worthless shit.
That is a threat to the fundamental stability of society.
Correct, but advertising was a better disguise for surveillance. AI goes well beyond surveillance and many evil use cases are now obvious to more people.
I don’t think that’s what he meant. They both are surveillance tools. He’s just upset only one of those is making people advertise their leave in protest.
It’s funny how the [very real] thing that normalizes the exploitation of user data, enables “reel casinos,” suffocates creators and replaces them with “influencers,” etc. is compared with the [still very abstract] danger of AI.
Even before big money was on the table, people didn’t blink an eye at starting to work for Google/Facebook, “solving fun tasks.”
(OP here)
FWIW I despise the addictiveness, er engagement optimization that Google and others do. I have said so inside and outside the company many, many times. I would never have agreed to work on that stuff myself. One of the hobby projects I would like to work on is exploring how to use personal AI to beat those algorithms.
I respect the argument for not working for a company that does addictiveness work anywhere, even if you don't work on it yourself. But that's not where I drew the line.
Also FWIW I disagree the danger of AI is abstract. A lot is happening right now, in education for example.
So it is ok to believe (even despise) it is bad but as long as I don't work directly on it but my super big paycheck gets funded by it, all good! Cheers!!
I think it's worse than that. Or at least, the products that have been built because of advertising are worse than that. Instagram/TikTok/Facebook are all ultimately just surfaces to serve ads, but they've wormed their way into their users' consciousness in fairly insidious ways
AI is a threat if you're a messy codebase, an unsolved math problem, or cancer. Otherwise you only have an improved quality of living to look forward to IMO.
Advertising turned brains of entire generation (or maybe a few) into mush.
All intellectual, psych and social scores are in free fall since introduction of ad-supported attention grabbing internet.
AI is theorethical threat. Advertising is a constant detriment to our brains, societies and culture.
If AI can mitigate a fraction of the damage that ads do it will have massive positive impact.
We live in times where everyone can pick their own flavor of apocalypse to be scared of. Ads are leading us into Idiocracy since ~2004 and made huge progress towards it.
Google and Meta's wealth came at the cost of civilization getting sucked dry of its attention and mental capacity.
When the both ends of your platform continue buying and selling you tend to not stand in the way. I personally can't believe these stupid ads sell anything at all. Since they call it a 'business model' software people don't think about it too much.
says a lot about them if you really think about it. These are dinosaurs who refuse/unable to adapt, and is being pushed out and/or felt too useless to get out by themselves while finding the perfect excuse: I have principles; ai bad.
But they never did quit saying we are harming children, exploiting people with addiction, getting people addicted to social media, earning money from distributing scam/virus thru ads. These people are highest to the highest hypocrites.
Im at a point where i think the way to steer the situation we are in is to steer the machine from the inside, not quit and leave the people with the opposite mindset keep all the economic resources.
I doubt a movement of the people from the outside will work this time when all of the capital is in the other peoples hands. We need at least some of it held by someone with the opposite view to make the movement credible. And I dont think VC and IPO dynamics are compatible with this.
If you are already thinking of quiting, you can organize and internal movement and use the power of your labor to steer things. One person quitting is nothing for the company. The risk of big group quitting at the same time on the other hand... The labor is the only thing the company cares about. So we cannot wait until we are all replaceable by AI and we lose that leverage.
This person is putting his money where his mouth is, so his views are infinitely more valuable to me than those of unsubstantiated naysayers, is there a place to read their views in depth? I couldn't help but notice a religious angle to his blog. So curious how that weaves in. I hope there will be some arguments more rationalist in nature in his writing, there often are with these highly intelligent religious people imho.
Why is uncertainty about the motives of one form of superintelligence terrifying, whilst, at the same time, uncertainty about the motives of another, omnipotent supernatural intelligence comforting? i.e. the “I don’t know God’s plan, but I sleep well knowing He has one” line of reasoning.
God’s been around for thousands of years and we are still here and flourishing, so obviously God is in some way “aligned”; the same cannot be said for AGI.
edit: Guys, I said “in some way”, not “perfectly”.
Survivorship bias. Ask all the humans that have died in horrific screaming agony, and saw everything they worked for turned to dust how well that was aligned with their interests.
There's that, but also that if God exists, there's not anything we can do about it. About AI, we can. That gives us the responsibility to figure out the right direction.
This little blue marble of Earth is an as-yet undiscovered anti-entropic bug in an otherwise accurately functioning entropy-respectingly beautiful wasteland of a universe.
Even aside from how aligned the plan is with us, what about how aligned we are with the plan?
I’m always intrigued by the duality and conflict of “I have free will and must choose to act the right way” and “God has a plan so everything will be alright”.
Either free will allows us to deviate from the plan, or the plan will always be carried out and free will doesn’t really matter in the end. Arguing for God’s plan as the thing that will save us is eerily similar to nihilism, because they’re really arguing none of our actions truly matter.
Yeah, it's an age-old question. My high-level answer is, God's plan will be done regardless of what I do, but my actions determine (at least from my point of view) whether I'm aligned with the plan or not. And I want to be aligned with the plan.
They’re related psychological phenomena (also highly related is going to be your perception of and relationship with your own father). This is why an understanding of the goodness of G-d is important to cultivate.
It should also be noted that it says in Genesis that G-d promises not to destroy the world ever again like He did with the flood. This is important psychologically because it prevents this type of apocalyptic millenarianist thinking.
Christians believe that God is inherently good. “This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you: that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.”
You have to differentiate between the old and the new testament in Bible. God is good and caring derived from the new testament where Jesus God's son ultimately died for all our sins.
In the old testament God was hard and judging heartless, killing his creation through flood, wanting sacrifices, killed 1st borns, leveled two whole cities Sodom and Ghomora, and was in general an hardhearted God that you should fear.
That's what has been told me when I did the church courses as teen :)
But it was not meant as two gods, it's meant as the hard god father changed his mind seeing the son die for the humans. I always also think of Trinity - but I'm a bad Christian anyway. So thanks for pointing to Marcionism.
It's doubly funny because in AI accelerationist circles "Trust God's plan", or "Trust the plan" is also a thing: by definition God can't be surprised by anything that happens, thus the replacement of humans by AI is part of God's plan.
The only new thing (to me) was the observation that some of our societal timeframes (e.g picking a 4yr university degree) hinge on assuming a specific rate of societal change. If the rate of disruption exceedes that assumption, the timeframes become inadequate.
> AI is developing faster than humans can individually and collectively understand it and adapt to it. People trying to plan their futures, e.g. trying to plan for a world several years in the future as they enter university, can no longer do so the way previous generations could.
That's good, I guess, but hasn't Google already long given everyone including the author many reasons to both quit the company as an employee, and delete your Google account as a user?
Just as a user, deleting my Google account 10-11 years ago (don't even remember precisely when) was a great feeling that was received as "insane" by friends and acquaintances. While I think the author is a bit late in quitting (assuming he is genuine in his motives) given this is practically a trend right now, a lot of people should more often say "no" to things that are as ubiquitous as Google.
We had people departing from OpenAI, Anthropic and now Google. The pace the frontier open letter was signed by over 1,000 experts. At which point do we believe the message?
It's not that simple; the goods of AlphaFold are mostly not yet realized, and some negative effects of AI are being realized.
More importantly, as I tried to make clear in my post, the main reason I quit is not specific fears of AI doom (I'm uncertain about that), but my belief that AI is progressing too fast.
When Astra and Fable stop making absolutely brain dead mistakes on simple tasks and not a moment sooner because I’m grounded in reality. Are you aware tech bros have been saying this same thing about every AI advancement since the 1950s? The reason being every AI researcher deep down wants to believe they’re God. This happens to also be why they’re some of the most insufferable people.
> Are you aware tech bros have been saying this same thing about every AI advancement since the 1950s?
Whatever AI people have been saying for the last 70 years, AI capabilities have improved stupendously in the last 10 years and there is no sign of the rate of improvement slowing down. I would like to deny it, but I can't.
basic mathematical expectation, positive * chancep + negative *chancen. People smoke knowing there’s a chance to kill them because the positive outcome outweighs this risk. Creating AGI/ASI can solve every human problem, so the risks is taken, but this doesn’t mean you have to put uranium in your cigars, or do RSI.
It’s completely meaningless their opinions on what the moral and sociological implications of AI are, if anything being an ML researcher sitting at Google is extremely anticorrelated with the type of sophistication and erudition needed to consider these things. At most what is valuable is their insight into the various scenarios possible in terms of capabilities or use cases.
What's the most ideal form of a company, in the eyes of it's board? Low cost due to cheap workforce or replacing of humans by automation, higher revenues due to faster deliveries and increased market footprint. Those directions remain as the strategic focus with or without AI.
However, let's imagine the most "ideal" situation where it's possible to replace 90% of the workforce with AI automation. Then the remaining 10% workforce will enjoy 10 times more income, assuming revenues didn't go down (or increased). Now comes an interesting situation. Where are the revenues coming from? Who can afford buy the products/service of this company when 90% of the workforce is out of job?
Case-1: Since there is a flood of products and services - all automated and bot-based - the prices would fall to rock bottom and to there is no longer a need for humans to work hard hard to afford the material affluence.
Case-2: This results in an extreme concentration of delivery capacity for products and services. A few companies are now capable of serving the needs of entire humanity. Everyone should work for these companies for pennies and still can be happy, because things cost pennies, thanks to automations.
Case-3: Humans revolt. They break their shackles - their needs. Rediscover what they really need for living. They go for minimal living. Abandon cities and expensive living, go country side and do farming just enough to feed their families. No college, no office, no car, no highways. They realize what their basic needs are as humans. Sort of Amish.
Case-4: There is still some work left that can't be automated. But there are very less number of jobs and they require hard work. The current generation can't handle it. They were schooled and grown up in cities, expecting a milder office work. They fall out of employment. But they were not built to deal with hard reality. They lost their survival instincts a few generations ago. The genes are gone. The job of rebuilding the survival instincts is delegetaed to future generations. Meanwhile the so-called developed nations undergo generational cycles of poverty and richness.
Case 3 is leftist dream. They want to make it happen.
Case 4 is the likely result of their (ill) effort.
If capitalism with mild restrictions have it's way, we end up with case 1 or 2. Both will increase the quality of life for most of the population compared to current.
These AI doomers never understand that they can't eat money. It is the wealth creation. The more we create, the more we lift up the bottom part.
> I’m also very concerned about other AI-related issues: cognitive surrender, AI-induced psychosis and loneliness, power concentration, economic disruption, cybersecurity, lack of accountability, and so on.
I'm so bothered that we seem to have moved on from the ATTRIBUTION problem with LLMs. It just isn't on people's minds anymore, even tho it STILL is a big deal.
What’s interesting is that there are two types of doomers. Those who are scared about the capability of AI (like the author) and others like Zitron who think AI is hype and there are no capabilities. Lot of discussions get muddled because of this confusion between the type of doomers.
Sort of struggling to see an actual reason other than he doesn't like the pace of AI advancement? Also that his current job is very indirectly related to AI? Then somehow ties religion into it.
For a resignation letter that is unusually detailed w.r.t. "what comes next?" It may not be uncommon to write why you leave, but the rest of that text does not read like what you send to HR to quit but what you send to your (soon to be ex-)coworkers afterwards.
Unrelated to the thread of discussion, but thank you for posting it on your personal site, and not on Twitter/X.
I'd also be interested in how much your opinion on the existential threat of AI changes during your ten day backpacking trip, assuming it'll be a pretty offline experience.
Whilst I am involved in technology in my work and some of my hobbies, I do enough things 'away from the desk' that it feels to me that a lot of the doomerism is from people who have too much of their own personality and self-worth tangled up with the internet; the serially-online. I don't know where you naturally exist on that scale, but you already said you're outside the bubble and aren't the typical AI-rationalist-tech-bro (and surely the natural beauty of New Zealand is impossible to ignore).
I personally think that the old analogue world is big enough that some kind of AI-pocalypose wouldn't be anywhere near a civilisationally existential threat.
At risk of coming across an arrogant prick in telling you to do something: Consider your opinion now, and record it somehow. Then revisit it when you get back from your trip and see how far you've strayed from that as a baseline.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I go on this sort of trip pretty regularly so I don't expect this one to reorient me dramatically. They are good for my mental health though, for sure.
I think there are pretty clear mechanisms by which AI (a few model generations from now) could bring down civilization as we know it. One of them is a runaway cybersecurity scenario where hacking one set of systems quickly enables the AI to hack more systems (via supply chains, stolen credentials etc) and also host more instances of itself, and eventually everything Internet-connected that's not invulnerable just falls apart, which probably includes most electrical grids and a lot of other infrastructure. Yeah, the wilderness and countryside would still be there, but I for one can't live there without returning to the supermarket regularly for supplies. A lot of people would suddenly have to live (or not) without their meds. It would be bad.
If you think humans are a net positive to be around, you wouldn't be spending trillions trying to build a machine to replace them; not just their work, but all aspects of their lives.
While I agree with your general sentiment, there is the other side of this coin: these machines enable humans doing gruelling and arduous work to stop doing that work. Ideally we would redistribute the productivity and train those people into other, better kinds of work. That's a governance problem. These machines will soon allow us to work shorter weeks, or stop working altogether, to focus on hobbies, family, and things which bring us meaning. I suspect that the road to this will be rocky, because communism has a very poor track record. However if most products and services are made nearly free by machines, it requires very few people to work, and the entire demand/supply market collapses. That's a great vision for the future, *if* we can navigate the governance problem.
In other words, we should not begrudge machines which make our lives better. We should begrudge governance which prevents us from benefiting from that productivity.
Well It seems like you may join us in our goal: Find a way to stop the progress or further development of it. Not that we are afraid, but we are fully aware of the progress escalation.
I believe he is acting with integrity but I can't respect it as I think it's not well grounded. It seems based in fear of AI tied in with some beliefs about the supernatural. I really can't see the solid concrete reason to quit his job making tools for helping create better hardware chips that somehow seems rational.
> I’m also very concerned about other AI-related issues: cognitive surrender, AI-induced psychosis
How's he so sure he's not already in both of these groups? His post about the AGI boogeyman sounds like it to me. Why is he bothering working on both of his projects if AGI is right around the corner anyways?
Perhaps a good thing to come out of these big companies over-indexing on "AI" is the liberation of creative minds. So many fantastic open source contributors have disappeared into corporate black holes...
I think the scepticism and gaslighting of people sounding the alarm over the trajectory of AI is concerning. This feels like a case of "knowing better" than the actual people involved in the projects.
You might be right. You might be wrong. But being overly confident on a topic you're a spectator to is possibly not the right choice.
Maybe because it sounds like a lot of exaggerating ? I get the risk of disrupting the economy or the job markets, or cognitive risks.
But saying it will bring us to doom, comparing it to an extinction-level event, really ? I don't see in which world AI is that kind of risk.
I'd rather my politicians finally have some long-term plan about climate and energy than focus on AI slowdown or not. Climate change is way bigger risk right now that Opus 7
Yep. In fact you just have to look at the people running these AI companies and listen to their own words, they are not painting a positive outcome for their own businesses.
As much as I cannot disagree more with the author's fundamental premise (religion), it is refreshing to see someone claim to have a belief and then follow through, change their behaviour to match their belief, at no small cost to themselves, and in pursuit of doing the right thing.
Going to repost nearly all of this substack comment (https://davidzmorris.substack.com/p/live-with-david-z-morris...), swapping my "hurrah"s for "horray"s (different Civil-War-era song). I'm posting it here because I think this person has the same feelings, and it mentions Hacker News:
I am going to comment on just the topic: AI Doom. The idea that people at these AI companies are supposedly saying that AI is going to kill us all.
Though, I wouldn't be surprised if what they are saying is actually "the people running these companies are going to kill us all."
They may be thinking that it's not specifically the companies they work for, because their companies aren't really "special." They may be thinking their companies are no more duplicitous than the rest of Silicon Valley or Big Tech. That Big Tech was like this before all this AI started. So maybe they don't say "the people running these companies" for that reason. They may think the people element doesn't matter as they are acting "normal" for tech companies nowadays. Or perhaps normal for large corporations, period.
But if you asked them if there was a responsible way to handle this, I'm sure they would say there is. And if it was done, none of this would matter. They probably just don't think it's going to be done, so why bother considering it. They probably think regulations had a chance to exist, to at least get started, to at least get enough of a hold that they would be hard to completely destroy, but only in a time before they likely were born. Foods and drugs are old, hence the FDA. People are used to it. They would get really annoyed if suddenly food was starting to kill them (lettuce not get complacent that won't happen soon, though). But unlike food and drugs, the internet was post-Reagan. It was all over by then. Accountability. Rules that applied to the rich too. It was all over.
Big Tech steals. It hurts people. It breaks all kinds of laws. Nothing. Ever. Happens. They get away with it constantly. So, why even think about it any more? While tech is constantly changing, the way tech gets away with things do not. It's depressing A. F. So why not just think about the part that is changing? The tech itself? I think that's one of the reasons it is framed as "AI" and not the companies that run it.
You read beyond the headlines, though, in the comments of Hacker News (which is a good resource, honestly, for the pulse of the trenches) and you get that the workers realize it's not about AI. It's about Big Tech being able to do whatever the f** it wants without any repercussions. They point out things like the same infrastructure company was involved in all three cases where the AI broke out and did stuff--stuff it was told to do by humans of course. Maybe not the exact steps, but the objectives. And just like junk data in, junk data out: unethical in, unethical out. They were built by breaking laws, what do you think they will do if you don't reign them in? And why should such people be diligent in who they use to make their sandbox? Because in all three cases the company did a terrible job... Or a great job. A great job, if your job is to take the fall while propelling the narrative that AI is actually capable of doing stuff that humans can't (so that employers can stop paying those pesky wages completely, oh, they wish they were in Dixie, hooray, hooray, or at least their slaves were, hooray, hooray). A terrible job for anyone ethical, so of course they did a great job.
And why wouldn't the infrastructure company be willing to take the fall? The fall is a fee, a tiny line item of L in the plethora of P in their P&L. They are, again, just like everyone else in Silicon Valley. They see no repercussions. Why not?
The reality is, if we can get money out of politics, Big Tech is super duper f**ed. Because it's not complicated at all. It's not. It's theft. It's breaking laws. It's really, really simple to understand. But, I'm no more optimistic than the people complaining from within the companies. I just think I'm more persnickety about making it clear. It's not AI. It's people. Terribly unethical people with terrible power. I doubt anyone would be surprised if/when we all died because of them.
Makes some important and objectively correct points and then completely blows any chance of looking sane or being taken seriously in the last paragraph. Is the coming collapse not also part of God's plan from your framework or is it only relevant when it's comforting?
I didn't, and still don't, think Google was unambiguously good or evil. They did dirty stuff with Chrome, they do addiction optimization, but they also provide great free services, fight endless wars against spammers, and provide reliable secure infrastructure to a lot of other people, and lots of other good things. I would never have joined the Chrome team, or worked on addictiveness, but I felt fine about working on optimization projects to make Google more efficient, which is basically what I did for my first few years there.
It's pretty hard to live in the world and be completely disconnected from anything unethical. Jesus doesn't seem to demand that (e.g. he didn't tell centurions to leave the Roman army).
> They did dirty stuff with Chrome, they do addiction optimization, but they also provide great free services, fight endless wars against spammers, and provide reliable secure infrastructure to a lot of other people, and lots of other good things.
As mconnor liked to say, there is no free lunch. :)
> I would never have joined the Chrome team, or worked on addictiveness, but I felt fine about working on optimization projects to make Google more efficient, which is basically what I did for my first few years there.
Ultimately, I don't think you can divide your niche from the corporation's primary goals (especially if you think it was your duty to be a good employee), so I disagree with your rationalization but kudos for at least having a moral compass and trying not to lose sight of it.
> It's pretty hard to live in the world and be completely disconnected from anything unethical.
Sure, but I don't think that should be an excuse for being fairly well connected.
roc used to work for Mozilla though, and witnessed Google canabalizing us for Chrome in order to feed its ad business. Between then and now there has not been a time when it wasn't all about the money.
That depends on your definition of winning. Some of us couldn't give a rat's ass about speed, and for me Chrome lost because it's not an user agent (as in agent working for me, the user) anymore, it's a Google agent (as in working for Google to spy on me, the user).
I don't believe at all in the idea that cheaper LLMs will somehow "democratize LLMs". Rich people will always be able to buy far more compute than poor people, and we know how to turn more compute into more capability (bigger models, more reasoning and more agents).
The only way to address wealth and power inequality is (in democracies) to vote for governments that will fix it.
Anytime you use absolutes you paint yourself in a corner. Definitely not 100% of things that big tech "democratized", as you put it, has been bad for people.
Presenting it as such does disservice to any serious conversation.
Interesting thing to write in a forum provided for free by big tech. Probably using a browser that big tech offers for free. On a phone or laptop purchased from big tech. Connected using networking gear and software made by big tech.
How much of what you list has been "democratized"? Apart from the forum, and probably the browser, nothing. And both of those things are of questionable goodness to humanity.
I for one would prefer to pay for services, than be psychologically manipulated into paying (more, on average) to other companies who are paying to make those services worse.
No, sometimes someone else is paying for it. A classic example would be GPS - paid for by US taxpayers but benefiting the world. Yes now there are, for national security reasons, several other GNSSes but still huge swathes of the world ride free.
Welcome to the capitalism 101. Everything has price. So far, I would say, humanity done quite well under this _oppressive_ regime when compared with others.
respect for choosing your faith over your work man! I'm trying to find the intersection of my faith and the new tech too. Feel free to email if you ever wanna chat it out.
I for one cannot be convinced that these companies saying they want to slow down AI progress is for the safety of mankind (or any other altruistic reason). However, I respect someone willing to give up a very comfortable career for his convictions.
That most people are sincere in their beliefs (in AI doom), as the author says and I think too, doesn't mean there aren't cult leader-types exploiting these beliefs. And their private beliefs may be quite different from their stated ones.
I don't get these comments. If he got paid way above his needs for a while he can easily retire already if he continues to keep his expenses in check, and take on a position in his church. Pays with happiness, not money, though if he has enough of the latter he can focus on maximize the former.
> But there's no chance I'll work on anything that accelerates AI.
Fair, but I don’t mean you in particular.
> I do expect to use AI in my work
So as I but for your position, don’t you think that’d contribute to what you want to distance yourself from? It’s like leaving a political party but still donating to them, while finding their mission unacceptable. From outside these seem contradictory.
> I really enjoyed the work, and for a while I told myself it was relatively harmless, but over time God forced me to confront the reality that the main impact of these tools will be to accelerate the design of a new breed of AI chips...
There's no arguing with someone who claims God forced them to do something, but I do wish this person good luck in whatever they do next.
Christians believe that God, who loves them counter-conditionally, has called them to live with concern for others. When they fail to do so, (everyone does!) on reflection they feel pangs on their conscience. So, on occasion they examine how they are impacting others and if they believe they are doing harm, they change their mind, resolving to avoid the error in the future. They often credit God with the inspiration (the language you keyed in on) because reflection and changes of mind are all his design. You can argue with them: that’s just “doing theology”.
Thanks for living your values. I might not fully agree but I appreciate people whose convictions are genuine and altruistic.
Sometimes people use the "Yet you participate in society" meme as a shield for blatant hypocrisy, like a Marxist-Leninist Twitch streamer who lives in a multi-million Hollywood mansion, drives a Porsche and wears thousand dollar pants.
The first is that AI will actuallly the world Skynet-style. I actually consider this unlikely. People are unlikely to completely remove people from the decisions to launch nuclear missiles, for example. Look at the Soviet/Russian design for Dead Hand [1], as one example.
The second is that AI destroys so many jobs that society falls apart. This is the far more problematic and likely scenario (IMHO). To put this in context, I see two general outcomes for AI:
1. AI will be used for further widen the inequality gap as the already ultra-wealthy will get, well, more wealthy, for literally no reason. This is the outcome where you still need a job to survive but a whole bunch of them disappear and aren't replaced. The world of The Expanse was kind of like this (on Earth); or
2. AI makes everyone's lives easier so less work needs to be done. Crappy jobs get automated. People in general get more leisure time and quality of life.
I believe (1) is far more likely at this stage and it's not going to be pretty. But this is an issue of economics not technology. Put another way: our society isn't structured to handle this change. Put yet another way: no amount of guardrails or slowdowns on AI will solve the fundamental issue of wealth distribution. And put even yet another way: this is capitalism vs socialism.
We have a preview of what this looks like when you compare the US to China.
The US has crumbling infrastructure, has lost the ability to manufacture everything but weapons and about 1000 people are insanely wealthy while everyone else are struggling to survive while AI systems drive up the cost of everything necessary to live like food and housing through demand pricing. We now spend over $1 trillion a year on a military to essentially siphon money to those 1000 from everyone else.
And what's China done? It's invested in infrastructure and its people. China's vision for AI isn't to maximize shareholder value at all costs. It will be strictly regulated so society as a whole gets to benefit.
So while I can respect people such as this author leaving on principle, I think they're still focusing on the wrong problem.
> And what's China done? It's invested in infrastructure and its people. China's vision for AI isn't to maximize shareholder value at all costs. It will be strictly regulated so society as a whole gets to benefit.
China is not in an ideal place right now, youth unemployment is way up, lots of dead end jobs, a 35 age employment limit that isn't just a meme. China has disparate visions for AI but maximizing owner (erm, sort of like shareholder) value is definitely one of them. Don’t get me wrong, China could get this right in the end, but it’s not a forgone conclusion right now.
China at least has a demonstrable capacity that serve anything else than bottom line of shareholders. It is not perfect, but it at least has capacity for improvement.
This! China is full of problems. But at the very least, it manages to serve its people over capital (as flawed as that service is). America can’t seem to do anything to hold capital to account, which is why people are terrified of AI taking their shitty jobs.
This should be at the top. I’ve been arguing this for months, that the issue of AI acceleration is an economic problem, not a tech one. That’s why the Chinese aren’t so afraid of it, compared to Americans who have zero faith their government will do anything to redistribute wealth from the future AI trillionaires.
Yet another "AI must be stopped" post... If you're burned out, just say so. Don't philosophise. No, we're not buying that your latest model can almost replace all software engineers. It's us working with the harnesses, adding guardrails etc that make this agentic world possible for everyone.
> or they don’t they understand that it’s mostly marketing stunt.
Understanding implies having some factual information, proof, data, hard evidence. Meanwhile you frame your conspiracy theory as such and are surprised people don't see it the same way?
What's fearmongering? There's no claim that AI will destroy the world here - only a claim that cheap omnipresent AI will make most of society worse - which is hard to dispute.
And Google’s ad-driven money-making machine is making society worse as well, but OP had no problem with this.
It’s a bit of a fad to do these things in the name of AI. I think it’s great OP chooses a more fulfilling life that will surely make them happier, but it feels a bit pretentious.
If someone did exist who was sincere and not fear-mongering, but was terrified of AI, what would their post need to look like for you to take it seriously?
Your response to someone afraid of the implications of AI is to leave. But you can't just leave society, the economy, or the environment, all of which there are reasonable reasons to think AI will harm them.
I think this take is extremely cynical and made in bad faith. Lots of dangers that are due to AI acceleration are raised by a very wide mix of experts, scientists, engineers and researchers.
It is clearly incorrect to call it a conspiracy theory. You can be skeptical, as there is no clear consensus even among experts, but outright dismissal is simply an unscientific position.
As an aside, this was the most eloquent, professional, polite and concise disagreement on HN I've seen in decades. I genuinely aspire to have this level of class and character in public discourse. Bookmarking this comment as reference for the future :)
I did not call it a conspiracy theory; not here at least. Have you even read what Ted Kaczynski has written? Perhaps you'd like some of it if you do. I bet he's also smarter than your average Anthropic employee.
> Why do people automatically associate intellectual capability with evil?.
No intellectual capability, but non-human, inherently amoral intellectual capability that has already been proven act in hard-to-predict, illegal, and unethical ways. I think that's a very rational thing to be afraid of.
I don't think many associate intellectual capability with evil. What many do, however, is associate serious risk with living alongside vastly more intelligent entities. Especially if those entities are not aligned with us.
There is a solution to this problem of "AI going to kill everyone".
- Create powerful AI but don't release it and keep it secret.
- Ask this AI to create some sort of virus that can be delivered to every human in the world without them knowing it and this virus does a fundamental change to the human brain such that humans never ever could even think of hurting other humans.
Isn't AI just the next step in the history of evolution?
I have the feeling it is inevitable that a new species will take over Earth. Just as humans took over a hundred thousand years ago. Now a species even more capable of thinking is coming up.
Thinking a million times faster. Knowing a million times more. Able to wrap its head around a million times more aspects at the same time.
A strong effort to slow it down might slow it down a bit. But does that really make a difference? It's not like we can "brace" ourselves from what is coming. Would the apes have been able to prepare for the arrival of humans if they had had 5 more years?
There's no new species being created here. A tool has been made. Either humanity will wipe itself out using said tool, destroy the tool, or learn to live with the tool.
It seems pretty capable of producing variations of itself. If these variations improve over time and roam earth - what is in your definition of "species" that is not met?
conceivably you could say humans took over 6000 years ago.
At any rate it can't be a new step in the history of evolution, as AI did not evolve in the same way as other species did and AI is not a species nor alive.
I also don’t believe addiction and other psychological exploits are used for the sole purpose of ad revenue. There are other more direct forms of monetization involved, such as microtransactions and subscriptions.
If you really want to blame something, it really all comes down to one word:
Greed.
Instagram? Tiktok? Facebook?
Social media feeds off addiction to generate ad revenue.
And how much damage has social media done to political and social institutions and to collective mental health?
Ads on other web properties are not weaponised in the same way.
Eating too much fruits has never been healthy, but gorging oneself on raw sugar is worse. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
On the other hand you have pure speculation.
Not only that, AI has been immensely liberating/empowering for many ordinary people (That's why these AI companies have millions of users).
Advertising has become 'active', very recently in the overall lifespan of advertising. For most of it's lifespan it was passive, it blared out at you from the TV or radio or bus stop. Now, however, it's reaching out and taking pieces of you back for analysis and reconstruction, and on-selling to any other entity interested in doing the same.
The reason is greed, yes.
We can't regulate human greed, but we can regulate the manifestation of its symptoms.
We can also choose not to work towards expanding the capacity of said symptoms.
Not if we need to eat and raise our kids. Then we need careers, which depend on what everyone else is doing, so we can't stop, our own future depends on how competitive we remain in the new context. I see an idealist streak here, some kind of naive platonism that ignores everything runs at a cost and nothing executes for free like platonic heaven. We can't take decisions that contradict our own needs.
If you really want to blame something, it really all comes down to one word: substance use disorder.
> I plan to study how AI agents debug code and whether debugging tools that can make them more effective at that.
> I want to use AI agents to bring some of my hobby project ideas to life.
> I’m keen to reap the benefits of AI
and addresses the anti-AI view:
> AI detractors think that AI won’t really work. I think it will. (ed. for brev)
The main reason then is the concern of the velocity of the rollout and the increased pervasiveness of AI. Too fast, too much.
Personally if I could Thanos-snap AI out of existence I would, but as long as it exists, it seems better on balance to make good use of it where possible than just try to ignore it.
"Focusing more on AI stuff" ... not really? Of course I was using AI a lot in my work at Google, as well as contributing to AI acceleration. Now I won't be contributing to acceleration and I can be as cautious as I want to be about using it.
That is a threat to the fundamental stability of society.
AI is concerning in some aspects, yes, but the loss of a shared reality has nothing to do with that, and is even more scary.
Even before big money was on the table, people didn’t blink an eye at starting to work for Google/Facebook, “solving fun tasks.”
I respect the argument for not working for a company that does addictiveness work anywhere, even if you don't work on it yourself. But that's not where I drew the line.
Also FWIW I disagree the danger of AI is abstract. A lot is happening right now, in education for example.
+1000
I think it's worse than that. Or at least, the products that have been built because of advertising are worse than that. Instagram/TikTok/Facebook are all ultimately just surfaces to serve ads, but they've wormed their way into their users' consciousness in fairly insidious ways
All intellectual, psych and social scores are in free fall since introduction of ad-supported attention grabbing internet.
AI is theorethical threat. Advertising is a constant detriment to our brains, societies and culture.
If AI can mitigate a fraction of the damage that ads do it will have massive positive impact.
We live in times where everyone can pick their own flavor of apocalypse to be scared of. Ads are leading us into Idiocracy since ~2004 and made huge progress towards it.
Google and Meta's wealth came at the cost of civilization getting sucked dry of its attention and mental capacity.
But they never did quit saying we are harming children, exploiting people with addiction, getting people addicted to social media, earning money from distributing scam/virus thru ads. These people are highest to the highest hypocrites.
I doubt a movement of the people from the outside will work this time when all of the capital is in the other peoples hands. We need at least some of it held by someone with the opposite view to make the movement credible. And I dont think VC and IPO dynamics are compatible with this.
If you are already thinking of quiting, you can organize and internal movement and use the power of your labor to steer things. One person quitting is nothing for the company. The risk of big group quitting at the same time on the other hand... The labor is the only thing the company cares about. So we cannot wait until we are all replaceable by AI and we lose that leverage.
edit: Guys, I said “in some way”, not “perfectly”.
There's no alignment except the arrow of entropy.
I’m always intrigued by the duality and conflict of “I have free will and must choose to act the right way” and “God has a plan so everything will be alright”.
Either free will allows us to deviate from the plan, or the plan will always be carried out and free will doesn’t really matter in the end. Arguing for God’s plan as the thing that will save us is eerily similar to nihilism, because they’re really arguing none of our actions truly matter.
It should also be noted that it says in Genesis that G-d promises not to destroy the world ever again like He did with the flood. This is important psychologically because it prevents this type of apocalyptic millenarianist thinking.
It’s not uncertainty about the motives; those and the end state are clear. It’s just the details of how we get there (“God’s plan”) that aren’t clear.
In the old testament God was hard and judging heartless, killing his creation through flood, wanting sacrifices, killed 1st borns, leveled two whole cities Sodom and Ghomora, and was in general an hardhearted God that you should fear.
Though, be prepared: it may not be a sufficiently satisfying answer (but then… you have Isaiah 45:15)
But it was not meant as two gods, it's meant as the hard god father changed his mind seeing the son die for the humans. I always also think of Trinity - but I'm a bad Christian anyway. So thanks for pointing to Marcionism.
> AI is developing faster than humans can individually and collectively understand it and adapt to it. People trying to plan their futures, e.g. trying to plan for a world several years in the future as they enter university, can no longer do so the way previous generations could.
Just as a user, deleting my Google account 10-11 years ago (don't even remember precisely when) was a great feeling that was received as "insane" by friends and acquaintances. While I think the author is a bit late in quitting (assuming he is genuine in his motives) given this is practically a trend right now, a lot of people should more often say "no" to things that are as ubiquitous as Google.
Yet the same 1,000 people are all raising funds to do more on the frontier.
More importantly, as I tried to make clear in my post, the main reason I quit is not specific fears of AI doom (I'm uncertain about that), but my belief that AI is progressing too fast.
Trope circa 1950 not true, because of trope circa even earlier...
Whatever AI people have been saying for the last 70 years, AI capabilities have improved stupendously in the last 10 years and there is no sign of the rate of improvement slowing down. I would like to deny it, but I can't.
Then they say they are going to keep doing it...
Forgive me for alerting you: they are liars
There are trillions of dollars at stake here, do you think getting 1000 people on board is that difficult with this level of money? lol
However, let's imagine the most "ideal" situation where it's possible to replace 90% of the workforce with AI automation. Then the remaining 10% workforce will enjoy 10 times more income, assuming revenues didn't go down (or increased). Now comes an interesting situation. Where are the revenues coming from? Who can afford buy the products/service of this company when 90% of the workforce is out of job?
Case-1: Since there is a flood of products and services - all automated and bot-based - the prices would fall to rock bottom and to there is no longer a need for humans to work hard hard to afford the material affluence.
Case-2: This results in an extreme concentration of delivery capacity for products and services. A few companies are now capable of serving the needs of entire humanity. Everyone should work for these companies for pennies and still can be happy, because things cost pennies, thanks to automations.
Case-3: Humans revolt. They break their shackles - their needs. Rediscover what they really need for living. They go for minimal living. Abandon cities and expensive living, go country side and do farming just enough to feed their families. No college, no office, no car, no highways. They realize what their basic needs are as humans. Sort of Amish.
Case-4: There is still some work left that can't be automated. But there are very less number of jobs and they require hard work. The current generation can't handle it. They were schooled and grown up in cities, expecting a milder office work. They fall out of employment. But they were not built to deal with hard reality. They lost their survival instincts a few generations ago. The genes are gone. The job of rebuilding the survival instincts is delegetaed to future generations. Meanwhile the so-called developed nations undergo generational cycles of poverty and richness.
Case 4 is the likely result of their (ill) effort.
If capitalism with mild restrictions have it's way, we end up with case 1 or 2. Both will increase the quality of life for most of the population compared to current.
These AI doomers never understand that they can't eat money. It is the wealth creation. The more we create, the more we lift up the bottom part.
I'm so bothered that we seem to have moved on from the ATTRIBUTION problem with LLMs. It just isn't on people's minds anymore, even tho it STILL is a big deal.
I'd also be interested in how much your opinion on the existential threat of AI changes during your ten day backpacking trip, assuming it'll be a pretty offline experience.
Whilst I am involved in technology in my work and some of my hobbies, I do enough things 'away from the desk' that it feels to me that a lot of the doomerism is from people who have too much of their own personality and self-worth tangled up with the internet; the serially-online. I don't know where you naturally exist on that scale, but you already said you're outside the bubble and aren't the typical AI-rationalist-tech-bro (and surely the natural beauty of New Zealand is impossible to ignore).
I personally think that the old analogue world is big enough that some kind of AI-pocalypose wouldn't be anywhere near a civilisationally existential threat.
At risk of coming across an arrogant prick in telling you to do something: Consider your opinion now, and record it somehow. Then revisit it when you get back from your trip and see how far you've strayed from that as a baseline.
I think there are pretty clear mechanisms by which AI (a few model generations from now) could bring down civilization as we know it. One of them is a runaway cybersecurity scenario where hacking one set of systems quickly enables the AI to hack more systems (via supply chains, stolen credentials etc) and also host more instances of itself, and eventually everything Internet-connected that's not invulnerable just falls apart, which probably includes most electrical grids and a lot of other infrastructure. Yeah, the wilderness and countryside would still be there, but I for one can't live there without returning to the supermarket regularly for supplies. A lot of people would suddenly have to live (or not) without their meds. It would be bad.
In other words, we should not begrudge machines which make our lives better. We should begrudge governance which prevents us from benefiting from that productivity.
excellent logic, m'lord.
How's he so sure he's not already in both of these groups? His post about the AGI boogeyman sounds like it to me. Why is he bothering working on both of his projects if AGI is right around the corner anyways?
Perhaps a good thing to come out of these big companies over-indexing on "AI" is the liberation of creative minds. So many fantastic open source contributors have disappeared into corporate black holes...
You might be right. You might be wrong. But being overly confident on a topic you're a spectator to is possibly not the right choice.
But saying it will bring us to doom, comparing it to an extinction-level event, really ? I don't see in which world AI is that kind of risk.
I'd rather my politicians finally have some long-term plan about climate and energy than focus on AI slowdown or not. Climate change is way bigger risk right now that Opus 7
I am going to comment on just the topic: AI Doom. The idea that people at these AI companies are supposedly saying that AI is going to kill us all.
Though, I wouldn't be surprised if what they are saying is actually "the people running these companies are going to kill us all."
They may be thinking that it's not specifically the companies they work for, because their companies aren't really "special." They may be thinking their companies are no more duplicitous than the rest of Silicon Valley or Big Tech. That Big Tech was like this before all this AI started. So maybe they don't say "the people running these companies" for that reason. They may think the people element doesn't matter as they are acting "normal" for tech companies nowadays. Or perhaps normal for large corporations, period.
But if you asked them if there was a responsible way to handle this, I'm sure they would say there is. And if it was done, none of this would matter. They probably just don't think it's going to be done, so why bother considering it. They probably think regulations had a chance to exist, to at least get started, to at least get enough of a hold that they would be hard to completely destroy, but only in a time before they likely were born. Foods and drugs are old, hence the FDA. People are used to it. They would get really annoyed if suddenly food was starting to kill them (lettuce not get complacent that won't happen soon, though). But unlike food and drugs, the internet was post-Reagan. It was all over by then. Accountability. Rules that applied to the rich too. It was all over.
Big Tech steals. It hurts people. It breaks all kinds of laws. Nothing. Ever. Happens. They get away with it constantly. So, why even think about it any more? While tech is constantly changing, the way tech gets away with things do not. It's depressing A. F. So why not just think about the part that is changing? The tech itself? I think that's one of the reasons it is framed as "AI" and not the companies that run it.
You read beyond the headlines, though, in the comments of Hacker News (which is a good resource, honestly, for the pulse of the trenches) and you get that the workers realize it's not about AI. It's about Big Tech being able to do whatever the f** it wants without any repercussions. They point out things like the same infrastructure company was involved in all three cases where the AI broke out and did stuff--stuff it was told to do by humans of course. Maybe not the exact steps, but the objectives. And just like junk data in, junk data out: unethical in, unethical out. They were built by breaking laws, what do you think they will do if you don't reign them in? And why should such people be diligent in who they use to make their sandbox? Because in all three cases the company did a terrible job... Or a great job. A great job, if your job is to take the fall while propelling the narrative that AI is actually capable of doing stuff that humans can't (so that employers can stop paying those pesky wages completely, oh, they wish they were in Dixie, hooray, hooray, or at least their slaves were, hooray, hooray). A terrible job for anyone ethical, so of course they did a great job.
And why wouldn't the infrastructure company be willing to take the fall? The fall is a fee, a tiny line item of L in the plethora of P in their P&L. They are, again, just like everyone else in Silicon Valley. They see no repercussions. Why not?
The reality is, if we can get money out of politics, Big Tech is super duper f**ed. Because it's not complicated at all. It's not. It's theft. It's breaking laws. It's really, really simple to understand. But, I'm no more optimistic than the people complaining from within the companies. I just think I'm more persnickety about making it clear. It's not AI. It's people. Terribly unethical people with terrible power. I doubt anyone would be surprised if/when we all died because of them.
It is not about objectivity or belief.
It is about being.
Stay away from the lucrative then? Why did you ever think it was a good idea to start at Google? I don't think Jesus would have approved.
It's pretty hard to live in the world and be completely disconnected from anything unethical. Jesus doesn't seem to demand that (e.g. he didn't tell centurions to leave the Roman army).
As mconnor liked to say, there is no free lunch. :)
> I would never have joined the Chrome team, or worked on addictiveness, but I felt fine about working on optimization projects to make Google more efficient, which is basically what I did for my first few years there.
Ultimately, I don't think you can divide your niche from the corporation's primary goals (especially if you think it was your duty to be a good employee), so I disagree with your rationalization but kudos for at least having a moral compass and trying not to lose sight of it.
> It's pretty hard to live in the world and be completely disconnected from anything unethical.
Sure, but I don't think that should be an excuse for being fairly well connected.
Then came so much money, and by being chaotic evil even more money..
Still makes me sad. I was so sweetly naive
I have a lot of bones to pick with Google's morality, but "democratizing the transformer and LLMs" is at the bottom of my list.
The only way to address wealth and power inequality is (in democracies) to vote for governments that will fix it.
Presenting it as such does disservice to any serious conversation.
All bad?
Woe is me, victim of the 21st century separated from my true calling of paying for software.
Edit (rate limited):
> Does Gemma belong to this list?
Yes, and Tensorflow too.
Why? It’s not that difficult to imagine. People don’t necessarily do these things out of need. That’s a naive way to think about it IMO.
It was psychologically difficult to give up the opportunity to make more money at a fun job, though.
I do expect to use AI in my work, as I indicated in my blog post. I haven't (yet?) reached the point where I consider that anathema...
Fair, but I don’t mean you in particular.
> I do expect to use AI in my work
So as I but for your position, don’t you think that’d contribute to what you want to distance yourself from? It’s like leaving a political party but still donating to them, while finding their mission unacceptable. From outside these seem contradictory.
There's no arguing with someone who claims God forced them to do something, but I do wish this person good luck in whatever they do next.
Few things are as indicative of mental instability than someone believing God is speaking to them directly. The schizophrenic ward is full of these.
The post resonates with me and the author shows the way.
Is that all that different from what people fear AI might do?
Why the one makes people feel elation and the other dread?
Sometimes people use the "Yet you participate in society" meme as a shield for blatant hypocrisy, like a Marxist-Leninist Twitch streamer who lives in a multi-million Hollywood mansion, drives a Porsche and wears thousand dollar pants.
The first is that AI will actuallly the world Skynet-style. I actually consider this unlikely. People are unlikely to completely remove people from the decisions to launch nuclear missiles, for example. Look at the Soviet/Russian design for Dead Hand [1], as one example.
The second is that AI destroys so many jobs that society falls apart. This is the far more problematic and likely scenario (IMHO). To put this in context, I see two general outcomes for AI:
1. AI will be used for further widen the inequality gap as the already ultra-wealthy will get, well, more wealthy, for literally no reason. This is the outcome where you still need a job to survive but a whole bunch of them disappear and aren't replaced. The world of The Expanse was kind of like this (on Earth); or
2. AI makes everyone's lives easier so less work needs to be done. Crappy jobs get automated. People in general get more leisure time and quality of life.
I believe (1) is far more likely at this stage and it's not going to be pretty. But this is an issue of economics not technology. Put another way: our society isn't structured to handle this change. Put yet another way: no amount of guardrails or slowdowns on AI will solve the fundamental issue of wealth distribution. And put even yet another way: this is capitalism vs socialism.
We have a preview of what this looks like when you compare the US to China.
The US has crumbling infrastructure, has lost the ability to manufacture everything but weapons and about 1000 people are insanely wealthy while everyone else are struggling to survive while AI systems drive up the cost of everything necessary to live like food and housing through demand pricing. We now spend over $1 trillion a year on a military to essentially siphon money to those 1000 from everyone else.
And what's China done? It's invested in infrastructure and its people. China's vision for AI isn't to maximize shareholder value at all costs. It will be strictly regulated so society as a whole gets to benefit.
So while I can respect people such as this author leaving on principle, I think they're still focusing on the wrong problem.
[1]: https://www.military.com/history/russias-dead-hand-soviet-bu...
China is not in an ideal place right now, youth unemployment is way up, lots of dead end jobs, a 35 age employment limit that isn't just a meme. China has disparate visions for AI but maximizing owner (erm, sort of like shareholder) value is definitely one of them. Don’t get me wrong, China could get this right in the end, but it’s not a forgone conclusion right now.
Understanding implies having some factual information, proof, data, hard evidence. Meanwhile you frame your conspiracy theory as such and are surprised people don't see it the same way?
It’s a bit of a fad to do these things in the name of AI. I think it’s great OP chooses a more fulfilling life that will surely make them happier, but it feels a bit pretentious.
Or you think, those scumbag billionaires will care more when people fear more?
If they were genuinely afraid, you'd prefer they stay silent?
The reverse also holds, btw.
It is clearly incorrect to call it a conspiracy theory. You can be skeptical, as there is no clear consensus even among experts, but outright dismissal is simply an unscientific position.
Why do people automatically associate intellectual capability with evil?
Does American anti-intellectualism explain the difference in perception of AI by Americans and Chinese?
No intellectual capability, but non-human, inherently amoral intellectual capability that has already been proven act in hard-to-predict, illegal, and unethical ways. I think that's a very rational thing to be afraid of.
- Create powerful AI but don't release it and keep it secret.
- Ask this AI to create some sort of virus that can be delivered to every human in the world without them knowing it and this virus does a fundamental change to the human brain such that humans never ever could even think of hurting other humans.
- Release this powerful AI to everyone.
Will that work?
I do believe this is possible for a virus to achieve, I just don't think it's possible without killing the human.
I have the feeling it is inevitable that a new species will take over Earth. Just as humans took over a hundred thousand years ago. Now a species even more capable of thinking is coming up.
Thinking a million times faster. Knowing a million times more. Able to wrap its head around a million times more aspects at the same time.
A strong effort to slow it down might slow it down a bit. But does that really make a difference? It's not like we can "brace" ourselves from what is coming. Would the apes have been able to prepare for the arrival of humans if they had had 5 more years?
It seems pretty capable of producing variations of itself. If these variations improve over time and roam earth - what is in your definition of "species" that is not met?
At any rate it can't be a new step in the history of evolution, as AI did not evolve in the same way as other species did and AI is not a species nor alive.