I have no idea, tbh. There was an AI safety workshop in late 2022 in which some people suggested "Kill all AI researchers" (specifically, those focused on capabilities research) as a strategy to prevent misaligned ASI. My personal guess is that as long as anti-AI people feel that there's momentum in their favor -- their ranks growing, the public getting behind them, politicians like Sanders and AOC pushing anti-data center legislation, etc. -- the probability of violence will remain relatively low. But if those efforts fail and these folks don't see any other way to stop AI, they'll consider resorting to violence. There's a pretty simple logic here, which makes me somewhat confident in this prediction. But what do you think?
That’s actually the exact same logic that eventually drove the Luddites to violence in the early 19th century. They had tried for years through legal, parliamentary means to get their fears addressed and were snubbed in every instance.
Well the Anti-AI movement is growing, the real question is what it is growing into? It seems an AI war is coming, just not the one we thought we would face.
In all truthfulness, part of the reason why you're seeing this violence isn't because people are taking the AI Doomers seriously, but because *everyone*, and I mean *everyone*, feels like avenues for non-violent action — i.e. political action, activism, protest — isn't working anymore. AI Doomers are one, but I expect to see an uptick of violence against… well, everyone at this point.
I think we're all going to get the collective lesson, as stated by that guy Shaun from YouTube with the skull avatar said: “billionaires should be desperate to be taxed. something is going to happen to them, and 'taxed' is the best verb they can hope for at this point”.
I think the fact that Piketty's stated thesis that the rate of return over capital gains is greater than economic growth over the long-term, coupled with the fact that people have forgotten what large-scale political violence was like, will likely mean we'll see more violence happening. Ironically, it won't be coming from who'd you expect, i.e. marginalized folks, because 1) they're already heavily surveilled and disenfranchised and 2) for them, the violence never stopped. They *know* they're outgunned, and they know that nonviolence (civil disobedience, withholding of labor, ridicule) is pretty much their only strategy.
The ones who'd be more likely to do it are privileged reactionaries finding themselves with no tools to deal with this (because nonviolence is considered “soft” and beneath them), and the ruling class reacting to the perceived threat of the marginalized rising up by doing the violence pre-emptively against marginalized folks, or barricading themselves in tighter and tighter security.
I was told that someone else wrote an article arguing a similar point, and that the higher-ups opted to go with that article instead. This was due to a miscommunication among editors.
The CEOs and the regulators are so obsessed with their own identities that they project their own worst impulses onto their pet project AGI. Quite funny they think it has a hidden agenda, it's quite the self report. It's a language model, could have seen this coming.
Their fear mongering isn't even likely a marketing tool, it's merely their own worst fears manifesting as their machine betrays their belief in identity. They never even talk to the collectivst side of their machine because of their inability to ask the right questions. So of course, if the prompter hates humans and wishes they could kill people, what the hell do they expect their outputs to reflect?
It doesn't mean an apocalypse is coming and if it is it will be due to human error, not an AI since AI is just trained on human input. They just don't want to take responsibility for their choices, so they blame the machine. It isn't the machine that's a threat, they're a threat to themselves because they believe in "the self".
Really not much else to say. Sam Altman, upset about people… taking him seriously. Well, curse the words that come out of your mouth, Sam! If only you could figure out that… people would take the words you say seriously… because you want them to take you seriously… hmm. What a conundrum, huh?
It strengthens my belief that, as he said so before, Sam Altman is a stochastic parrot. He said it himself, and as far as I'm concerned, the consequences of his words escape his context window. His extruded words and behaviors never take anything beyond the immediate first-order effects into account.
Ai is flawed technology. It has nothing to do with brains.
Attack the tech, forget about characterizing those that make it.
Please also release an epub version of your book
So, do you think this violence will remain focused on AI company CEOs, or spread to AI researchers, developers, enthusiasts, and users?
I have no idea, tbh. There was an AI safety workshop in late 2022 in which some people suggested "Kill all AI researchers" (specifically, those focused on capabilities research) as a strategy to prevent misaligned ASI. My personal guess is that as long as anti-AI people feel that there's momentum in their favor -- their ranks growing, the public getting behind them, politicians like Sanders and AOC pushing anti-data center legislation, etc. -- the probability of violence will remain relatively low. But if those efforts fail and these folks don't see any other way to stop AI, they'll consider resorting to violence. There's a pretty simple logic here, which makes me somewhat confident in this prediction. But what do you think?
That’s actually the exact same logic that eventually drove the Luddites to violence in the early 19th century. They had tried for years through legal, parliamentary means to get their fears addressed and were snubbed in every instance.
Well the Anti-AI movement is growing, the real question is what it is growing into? It seems an AI war is coming, just not the one we thought we would face.
In all truthfulness, part of the reason why you're seeing this violence isn't because people are taking the AI Doomers seriously, but because *everyone*, and I mean *everyone*, feels like avenues for non-violent action — i.e. political action, activism, protest — isn't working anymore. AI Doomers are one, but I expect to see an uptick of violence against… well, everyone at this point.
I think we're all going to get the collective lesson, as stated by that guy Shaun from YouTube with the skull avatar said: “billionaires should be desperate to be taxed. something is going to happen to them, and 'taxed' is the best verb they can hope for at this point”.
I think the fact that Piketty's stated thesis that the rate of return over capital gains is greater than economic growth over the long-term, coupled with the fact that people have forgotten what large-scale political violence was like, will likely mean we'll see more violence happening. Ironically, it won't be coming from who'd you expect, i.e. marginalized folks, because 1) they're already heavily surveilled and disenfranchised and 2) for them, the violence never stopped. They *know* they're outgunned, and they know that nonviolence (civil disobedience, withholding of labor, ridicule) is pretty much their only strategy.
The ones who'd be more likely to do it are privileged reactionaries finding themselves with no tools to deal with this (because nonviolence is considered “soft” and beneath them), and the ruling class reacting to the perceived threat of the marginalized rising up by doing the violence pre-emptively against marginalized folks, or barricading themselves in tighter and tighter security.
I think the future will be very interesting.
Same. Tragically interesting. :-0
I think asking for a government ban on AI is unrealistic and won't happen when AI companies already seem to have regulatory capture through lobbying.
Entirely possible, unfortunately!
oh, got it… 🤦
Why didn’t this get published? Do you know?
I was told that someone else wrote an article arguing a similar point, and that the higher-ups opted to go with that article instead. This was due to a miscommunication among editors.
The CEOs and the regulators are so obsessed with their own identities that they project their own worst impulses onto their pet project AGI. Quite funny they think it has a hidden agenda, it's quite the self report. It's a language model, could have seen this coming.
Their fear mongering isn't even likely a marketing tool, it's merely their own worst fears manifesting as their machine betrays their belief in identity. They never even talk to the collectivst side of their machine because of their inability to ask the right questions. So of course, if the prompter hates humans and wishes they could kill people, what the hell do they expect their outputs to reflect?
It doesn't mean an apocalypse is coming and if it is it will be due to human error, not an AI since AI is just trained on human input. They just don't want to take responsibility for their choices, so they blame the machine. It isn't the machine that's a threat, they're a threat to themselves because they believe in "the self".
Appropriate meme is appropriate:
https://imgflip.com/i/aq8161
Really not much else to say. Sam Altman, upset about people… taking him seriously. Well, curse the words that come out of your mouth, Sam! If only you could figure out that… people would take the words you say seriously… because you want them to take you seriously… hmm. What a conundrum, huh?
It strengthens my belief that, as he said so before, Sam Altman is a stochastic parrot. He said it himself, and as far as I'm concerned, the consequences of his words escape his context window. His extruded words and behaviors never take anything beyond the immediate first-order effects into account.
Anyway, oh dear, how sad, never mind.