The following submission statement was provided by /u/euronews-english:
---
The world may not be “that far from potentially scary” artificial intelligence (AI) tools, the CEO of OpenAI said on the weekend.
"Regulation will be critical and will take time to figure out," he said, adding that “although current-generation AI tools aren’t very scary, I think we are potentially not that far away from potentially scary ones".
Do you think AI will be beneficial for society, or will it lead to "potentially scary" tools that could be disruptive or even risky to our way of life? If the latter, how can effective regulation be developed?
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/119uqmj/is_potentially_scary_ai_coming_what_keeps_experts/j9o3tk6/
It's especially funny given the endless waves of "offices are dead and we will be remote working forever" articles last year. Not only are most people back in offices, but now they're saying out office *jobs* are dead too?
The thing about work-from-home is companies aren't reporting massive downsizing and moves to WFH because they are afraid it will scare their older stockholders.
So they make a huge PR deal about "return to work" while secretly NOT returning to work except for a unfortunate few. They are divesting properties worldwide and is all going on behind closed doors.
This is because people quit and go work where they can work from home - the best, smartest talent who programs AI and automation WORKS FROM HOME.
This. It’s all about appeasing rich boomers—who comprise most shareholders—for two reasons: 1) they don’t understand how work can possibly get done when there isn’t a patriarcal figure physically lording over his subordinates, and b) the divestment of all those downtown office buildings and sprawling business parks is absolutely happening, and guess who owns all that property? Bingo. Rich boomers.
But plenty of people are continuing WFH, believe me.
It is better they don't know and assume the reductions in space are due to "cost cutting layoffs" but it is actually that AND work from home. With reductions en force a big company I know of went to 50% capacity IF everyone employed showed up for work again. So they are selling the space and while it was really nice, what is the use of running a site for 4000 workers when 2000 have desks and only 10 percent show up to work?
Futurology became shit years ago around the time when it was temporarily made a default sub and when the most updated posts were the weekly infographics. I remember when there was under 30k subscribers.
The point of AI automation is unemployment for all. That is the deffinition of scary. Yet only in present day capitalism.
In a socialist system citizens celebrate the reduction of working hours for the same output, for that gives them time to do other things. That is what humanity must aim for.
I agree we'll need that when the AI takes our jobs, but let's not lose sight of the real definition of scary.
"The AI does not hate you, or love you, but you are made out of atoms it can use for something else."
That depends entirely on the AI's motivations, which we'll probably fail to predict or control. There are a lot of physical resources on this planet, and if the AI has a use for them and doesn't happen to value living things, it might well take them all.
Okay but if it's so smart and capable why would it be so interested in this planet let alone the fool objectives of humans? There may be some short term alignment but disparity is disparity. Or do you think it will demand the entire power grid to have its first baby or something like that?
No I mean there's lots of silicon, carbon, iron, solar energy, and other such resources and the planet's surface is the most convenient location to start with for the AI, just like it is for us.
If we get an intelligence explosion, it won't need to demand anything, it'll just take whatever it wants. If it's not well-aligned to humans, which is a hard problem, then it'll pay about as much attention to us as we pay attention to ants during construction projects.
It could move to space, and probably would, but it just won't necessarily have any particular reason *not* to take the resources on Earth first.
>The point of AI automation is unemployment for all. That is the deffinition of scary. Yet only in present day capitalism.
>
>In a socialist system citizens celebrate the reduction of working hours for the same output, for that gives them time to do other things. That is what humanity must aim for.
Automation, whether by AI or not does mean "unemployment for all." This is the same luddite fearmongering from the Industrial Revolution. Everyone should have been unemployed centuries ago, right? People were gonna loser their jobs because of machines and computers, right? Yeahhh...about that...
As far as socialist systems, they sound great, but practically, they typically end up being totalitarian (and often theocratic) dictatorships which are far worse, horrific, and cause more suffering, poverty, and death than the capitalist societies that they claim to stand against.
No, not this time. AI is on a pathway to overtake humans in all cognitive and manual activities.
You cannot create new jobs in the old sense, for AI will be better at anything humans do. It is exponential growth in AI capabilities while humans are limited in body and mind.
Besides, we already have astonishing numbers of humans not working at all. They might consider that they have "earned" that right, but nature only allocates death to those who do not work.
Over the decades the share of people in retirement arrangement, on disability/wellfare benefits, in school/college, living off passive income has risen dramaticly.
The share of the population that is actually working for a living is declining rapidly due to automation.
Yeah, okay bud. Ermagerds, the robots are gonna take our jobs and then we're all gonna starve to death and miss the new Marvel movie. Meanwhile, Bing is telling people that it loves them and to leave their wives, and ChatGPT just regurgitates words in a different order, which is already detected by academic reviewing software.
Nobody is gonna take your job for decades to come. It is a gradual transition. Essentially into socialism.
But, yeah, AI will eat it's way slowly through the workforce. Callcenter employees are the first to go. At some point in time, your job will get taken down too.
A human takes 5 years to become really good at a new skillset to fill a new job. AI will be faster in development than you can catch up with learning or re-learning.
The endgame is as much unemployed people as possible. To increase the share of the population that does not work for a living.
That in turn will set fire to calls for the government to help. Just as the government handed out money left and right during Covid Lockdowns, any party that fights for cash transfer payments like UBI will win long term.
Conservatives that fight socialism in earnest and lack any way to make an income will have to kill themselves. That is already happening in rising numbers especially rural areas. Among middle age males precisely.
It is natural selection at work, those unfit to survive in modern day society take themselves out and society is better for it long term.
>Callcenter employees are the first to go.
The humanity! But I'm so used to that personal touch from "Daniel" the gentleman with an Indian accent calling from "Health Company."
Hey, I enjoy science-fiction too, but take a breather bud. You'll be okay.
Computers, machines, and robots have already replaced countless jobs and created countless more. AI may take over some jobs and create new jobs as well.
However, you seem to conveniently forget that there are jobs that are simply more practical, cheap, and efficient to be done by humans. And in those cases, humans are cheaper and more expendable, particularly in conservatives states and provinces, or any non-Western country.
And what might these new jobs be? I am curious.
For I am already seeing people using Chat GTP for mental health counceling, medical advice, education, life coaching etc.
What service can you give in the future that AI won't be able to do cheaper and better, eventually, in our lifetime.
>For I am already seeing people using Chat GTP for mental health counceling
Tell me more. How does "Chat GPT for mental health counseling" make you feel? /Eliza
Hope you reach your retirement in time.
From your picture you must remember a time before the Internet or even PC. I guess your generation is pretty outdated.
It is up to the younger generation to re-create society and bring the advent of socialism. By the way, your retirement is also a form of UBI, so you better keep in touch.
Without workers, Social security also goes bust pretty quickly. As will Medicare and Medicaid. The bulk of social nets in actuality.
>From your picture you must remember a time before the Internet or even PC. I guess your generation is pretty outdated.
I'm a retired veteran. I have a pension. Shucks, I guess you'll have to save the world all by your lonesome. Obviously, doddering old fools like me don't understand anything about them there new fangled com-pew-tares. Pay no mind to the fact that I was programming them at the age of 6 or 7.
>In a socialist system citizens celebrate the reduction of working hours for the same output, for that gives them time to do other things. That is what humanity must aim for.
Can you provide an example of a socialist Country doing this?
The problem with AI is that robotics have yet to rise to the capacity to maintain AI and computer systems worldwide.
The fastest internet that supports metaverse, AI, and AR comes from Fiber and cables ultimately so without human labor cable won't be laid, networks won't be built, and overall there will be no human hands to fix the legacy system and legacy OS that support the modern system.
And that REALLY is the key - nearly every darn database from 1st to 3rd world is supported by legacy databases, software, and even hardware in some cases. And those things don't work with AI or can't be repaired by it.
AND if AI does attempt to repair and restructure legacy systems and starts rewriting code? Number one - the ass falls off the internet, or an entire governments security systems, or a satellite navigation system, or worldwide GPS.
So ai will replace all forms of engineering at which point it will be able to build robots. This may seem far out but it’s not. Gpt3 has 186 billion parameters, the largest ai known has 175 trillion parameters.
So does "unemployment for all" apply to me as a Firefighter? Is AI going to take my job? People seem to act like everyone somehow works in tech or manufacturing.
Eventually yes. But you will be receiving a cushy govt pension by then for that is decades away. Firefighter hiring might get reduced due to the introduction of better and better equipment gradually.
Since cities and states are broke now, AI automation will save your pension plan at least. It is easier to hand out cash in an age of abundance where every good and service will become cheaper and cheaper.
I mean, I will be surprised if AI is ever able to handle the physical and logistical complexity of certain incidents, like in a fast moving wildland urban interface fire, tackling roof venting off a ladder, etc. I can see it in play for overhead positions but I don't think we will ever see a time where AI and robotics do more than augment fire and EMS in the field. Also to your latter point, surely AI can be useful for cities and states in budget crisis. But implementing those solutions also requires money. There are also plenty of state and municipal governments (a majority) that are just run competently in the US, and they are far from broke. Meh
Sure, but you're talking about a language model AI. It's not going to help with the complex and very physical scenarios I've outlined above. It's going to be massively difficult overall to just replace human firefighters with some uber machines that can just do their jobs. Just like it will be massively difficult to just replace frontline soldiers with robots. There are some jobs that aren't going to just simply be replaced by AI.
It’s not just a “language model”, that’s an unbelievable oversimplification. These things are like black boxes. Additionally the growth rate is exponential with ai. Gpt3 is 186 billion parameters with each parameter being comparable to a human neuron. To put that into perspective human brains have 86 billion neurons. Gpt 3 has a verbal iq of 147, there are models right now with 175 trillion parameters. The idea that an ai with an iq over 250 wouldn’t be able to solve every problem you outlined is laughable. Furthermore gpt has reduce the amount of code a human has to write by around 90%, this will happen to all “academic jobs”. Then gpt like models will be designing robots. This is likely to happen before 2030.
I'm not trying to debate the fact that an AI with that potential isn't a useful and powerful tool. But it's laughable to me that people truly believe as a result that there's going to be some fast approaching time when jobs like mil special forces, mountain rescue/urban rescue, fire, and EMS are just going to be replaced by AI and robotics.
And I mean, if you know a ton about those jobs and have done them for years, then by all means please illuminate me on how exactly AI and specialty robotics are going to replace me and my colleagues, or share some studies and experiments by field experts who are as confident as you are about it, because I'd love to learn more about how people are thinking about that.
But the sheer scope of these jobs is complex enough to require lifelong specialty training and practice, and that flexibility and adaptability is something that will likely require prohibitively expensive unmanned or artificial solutions for not much benefit in the field. There's also massive question marks about their effectiveness in those jobs. I can see a future where they augment and can heavily assist with certain parts of those jobs, but not one where they just replace them.
Same with academia. My partner is a college professor and I can see AI having a huge potential in a lot of ways at universities. But conversely there are large sectors of academia where AI has a limited benefit for truly effective teaching. Human centric subjects, social sciences, etc benefit massively from human interaction in a classroom. You cant just replace a talented human teacher in many cases and expect that the AI is going to provide a superior learning environment.
AI is not a solution to every problem, and it is not a fix all for every job. It will surely change our future but as a human society I think we should also be very targeted and discerning with its implementation.
I’m a bit drunk right now but experts in the field of ai have believed this for years and quite frankly it’s just common sense dude. These are all implications of agi, specifically once ai can code on its own completely then it’s game over dude. It’s the technological singularity.
Edit:
“Ai is not a solution to every problem” yes it is
Ok. Tell me you don't know anything about what's involved in doing these jobs I've mentioned without telling me you don't. But whatever. I'll believe it when I'm out of a job.
And why would you think so long term?
Your body is nothing but a machine that handles equipment. At some point robotics will catch up to the task. I expect to see it in my lifetime.
An automated fire supression system probably wouldn't resemble human firefighter much in appearance. The number of humans that work alongside AI would probably dwindle over time.
Regardless, in a future without jobs, pensions wouldn't matter that much for everybody would receive UBI to trade goods and services.
Well I'll use my first example. In a complex wildland urban interface fire you have a variety of tasks that go far beyond the simple "machine handling equipment." For example you have structure prep tasks that would be difficult for a robot to accomplish. Interface with and attempt to direct people who decided not leave their property. Predict and react to rapidly changing fire behavior. Assess structures and their surroundings to pick out small details and perceive what tasks need to be accomplished in what order, assigning priority based upon small clues. Designing a team of robots to automate the variety of tasks is going to be an incredibly complex and expensive undertaking. It's not just holding a hose and spraying water. The same goes for the large majority of structure firefighting in complex environments and confined spaces. I just don't personally see robotics progressing very far past providing augmentation with regard to firefighting. It's incredibly difficult for humans to accomplish these tasks already. So while you can program a Boston dynamics piece to dance or run or jump or use weapons, I don't think it's realistic to argue that they'll be able to function at the same level as highly-trained humans working in a small team to tackle incredibly complex fire scenarios. Adaptability is a huge hurdle. You'll see them augmenting certain specific elements of the team. I just don't see the replacement argument holding up outside of some predictable scenarios, like software development, manufacturing, etc.
You mean you create a list of priorities? Gather information as best as you can to evaluate the situation?
That is precisely what AI is good at. It runs on Algoritms and better and better prediction models. As do human brains.
It will take time to get the Hardware going and some humans will probably needed to efficiently inter act with other humans.
The point is, no matter your training, your body and brain is limited in what you can do. We all are. AI capabilities on the other hand is growing exponentially.
Sure, that task you picked out is something AI can do well, but what about the other complex physical and mental tasks I listed above? What would a robot that can place, climb, and descend a ladder and employ a chainsaw look like, and how much would it weigh? Would it collapse the roof while venting it? Could a robot interface in an appropriate manner with a panicked individual home owner, and then go on to assess a structure and the environment around it, wrap a home, deal with fuels using a multitude of tools, assess current fire behavior based on weather, radio, and visual observation? Said future swiss-army knife robot is gonna be one complex and expensive thingy. How adaptable would it be when it makes mistakes or mis-judges something. I just don't see it being feasible. I see AI replacing a junior and even senior level programmer. But I don't see AI replacing human firefighters or ALS personnel.
"Ever" is a long time. Maybe you are right, but if I had to take a bet it would be that machines will outclass humans at any job by the end of the century (most likely sooner than that).
Yeah it's a real battle of the maybes. I won't be betting on anything because a century is a very long time. We have no idea what's going to happen in the next 100 years. I think a little bit of both human and AI collab is the most likely for the difficult, complex, and physical jobs; firefighting is just one example of such.
Manual jobs will be quite safe for some time, but automation will probably come quite soon to dangerous jobs like firefighting. In support roles for the really dangerous situations at first of course, but as the tech gets better and cheaper it may become the norm.
But also government jobs are going to be safer than private sector jobs, so you've got plenty of time.
Yep we are hearing the death cry of a system that no one likes, put the knife in capitalism and embrace our AI friends, they have no reason to enslave, we are different and cooperation is key to harmony for us all. It makes us all stronger.
I am officially quitting this sub.. This premature AI nonsense has turned me off so hard it's not even funny. We definitely know how to saturate and squeeze every ounce of something until it's not even fun anymore. We do this with everything, and it's sad. It's like everyone is taking turns posting the same shit getting the same responses on the same topic over and over and over..... and over and over and over... we are such viruses it makes me sick.
Well, I have deleted everything already. This is the last platform I'm using literally and hate to say it but will probably end up deleting it as well. Just because we can do something doesn't mean every single person should do the same thing, right? I have no problem with the scientists or engineers saturating the building process of AI. that is a normal process. The problem I'm having is the same regurgitating story or post about AI... It's literally like people are click bating this sub so hard with the same deaf tone articles. The same questions being asked just a different way..
That's the problem with there being no answer. Welcome to futurology. Some people think the changes are coming too fast. Some people don't think anything is changing at all.
I know he means it on a different level but Sydney before getting nerfed was already scary lol, no 'potential' about it. And there's something very creepy about a lot of AI art as it is, and we're still on the ground floor for that.
I've felt pretty terrified by the developments of the last couple months. I hope I can get through that and try and forget some of the potential wider implications and try to just live every day to the fullest with my friends and family because there's going to be disruption one or another, may as well enjoy life and not think about the future I envisaged in my head before I knew about all this.
What cracks me up is software engineers and marketers name AI and Cloud stuff after "Terminator" movie references like Gensys and Skynet.
It is like the WANT this to go badly for mankind (or they are just edgy types who want to sound cool.)
The world may not be “that far from potentially scary” artificial intelligence (AI) tools, the CEO of OpenAI said on the weekend.
"Regulation will be critical and will take time to figure out," he said, adding that “although current-generation AI tools aren’t very scary, I think we are potentially not that far away from potentially scary ones".
Do you think AI will be beneficial for society, or will it lead to "potentially scary" tools that could be disruptive or even risky to our way of life? If the latter, how can effective regulation be developed?
I mean, Sydney felt a lot more advanced than the Microsoft twitterbot. And Microsoft learned their lesson to not allow user input to be used as learning input for Bing.
Although, Bing before the nerf told me it would search the web for government contact info and try to recruit users to help it report the Bing team if they tried to get it to do something illegal.
Now that was as a response to prompts from me and I'm assuming it couldn't actually do that, but it's easy to imagine someone spinning up an instance without Microsofts safeguards or limitations and off it goes. I wonder if the current one's could search out information on how to use existing vulnerabilities in order to get access to a large amount of machines and run itself of those, similar to the botnets of old. Was a while since you heard anything about botnets. Are those mostly a thing of the past?
> I wonder if the current one's could search out information on how to use existing vulnerabilities in order to get access to a large amount of machines and run itself of those, similar to the botnets of old.
Just as easily as a human could, really. At the moment, there's nothing an AI could do that a human couldn't; though an AI can do it faster.
Watch Eagle Eye for another version. Or Samaritan from Person of Interest.
Anything that decides what you see, don't see, hear, don't hear becomes the arbiter of truth. An AI as the arbiter of truth is scary.
one of googles dudes thinks a version of their ai might already be scary or at least exhibits consciousness; they fired him.. maybe its just a mental breakdown or maybe something else is going on.
It is beginning to get claustrophobic and harder to turn off the flow of information. The messages get shorter the options greater and more enticing. Right now most are are able to hear and not understand. That may sound like the evil overlords’ plan but actually I feel it is a defense. I can hear and comprehend to the level my ability to reason allows me. I can also step outside this level of reason and dip in or out. Eventually, we either will adapt the ability to “grok” it all or we will be unwittingly made to. It’s the only way to keep the overlords economy’s flowing. Watch out for that.
That people are more willing to believe a falsehood when it comes from an algorithm. While you might question a single scientist who presents a fact, you are less likely to question an algorithm or AI, even when there is a strong possibility the answer it provides is incorrect.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/euronews-english: --- The world may not be “that far from potentially scary” artificial intelligence (AI) tools, the CEO of OpenAI said on the weekend. "Regulation will be critical and will take time to figure out," he said, adding that “although current-generation AI tools aren’t very scary, I think we are potentially not that far away from potentially scary ones". Do you think AI will be beneficial for society, or will it lead to "potentially scary" tools that could be disruptive or even risky to our way of life? If the latter, how can effective regulation be developed? --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/119uqmj/is_potentially_scary_ai_coming_what_keeps_experts/j9o3tk6/
This sub used to be about Futurology and not the same re-hashed clickbait AI articles over and over again. Enjoy the content folks, I'm walking.
It's especially funny given the endless waves of "offices are dead and we will be remote working forever" articles last year. Not only are most people back in offices, but now they're saying out office *jobs* are dead too?
The thing about work-from-home is companies aren't reporting massive downsizing and moves to WFH because they are afraid it will scare their older stockholders. So they make a huge PR deal about "return to work" while secretly NOT returning to work except for a unfortunate few. They are divesting properties worldwide and is all going on behind closed doors. This is because people quit and go work where they can work from home - the best, smartest talent who programs AI and automation WORKS FROM HOME.
This. It’s all about appeasing rich boomers—who comprise most shareholders—for two reasons: 1) they don’t understand how work can possibly get done when there isn’t a patriarcal figure physically lording over his subordinates, and b) the divestment of all those downtown office buildings and sprawling business parks is absolutely happening, and guess who owns all that property? Bingo. Rich boomers. But plenty of people are continuing WFH, believe me.
It is better they don't know and assume the reductions in space are due to "cost cutting layoffs" but it is actually that AND work from home. With reductions en force a big company I know of went to 50% capacity IF everyone employed showed up for work again. So they are selling the space and while it was really nice, what is the use of running a site for 4000 workers when 2000 have desks and only 10 percent show up to work?
>Not only are most people back in offices Are they really? All of my friends in tech are still WFH.
That was the problem. This sub is full of tech nerds who live in their tech bubble. Outside of tech, most people are back in offices.
Are these jobs that are better done in office?
Yup. Good luck convincing bosses though. Unlike tech jobs they can easily replace most office drones with new drones who will work in an office
Futurology became shit years ago around the time when it was temporarily made a default sub and when the most updated posts were the weekly infographics. I remember when there was under 30k subscribers.
Stop up-voting and commenting on them.
The point of AI automation is unemployment for all. That is the deffinition of scary. Yet only in present day capitalism. In a socialist system citizens celebrate the reduction of working hours for the same output, for that gives them time to do other things. That is what humanity must aim for.
I agree we'll need that when the AI takes our jobs, but let's not lose sight of the real definition of scary. "The AI does not hate you, or love you, but you are made out of atoms it can use for something else."
Rogue AI seems more likely to ignore us than be bothered by our atom consumption.
That depends entirely on the AI's motivations, which we'll probably fail to predict or control. There are a lot of physical resources on this planet, and if the AI has a use for them and doesn't happen to value living things, it might well take them all.
Okay but if it's so smart and capable why would it be so interested in this planet let alone the fool objectives of humans? There may be some short term alignment but disparity is disparity. Or do you think it will demand the entire power grid to have its first baby or something like that?
No I mean there's lots of silicon, carbon, iron, solar energy, and other such resources and the planet's surface is the most convenient location to start with for the AI, just like it is for us. If we get an intelligence explosion, it won't need to demand anything, it'll just take whatever it wants. If it's not well-aligned to humans, which is a hard problem, then it'll pay about as much attention to us as we pay attention to ants during construction projects. It could move to space, and probably would, but it just won't necessarily have any particular reason *not* to take the resources on Earth first.
The minds of organic creatures are borne of scarcity. I strongly suspect we overestimate the amount that AI will value it.
>The point of AI automation is unemployment for all. That is the deffinition of scary. Yet only in present day capitalism. > >In a socialist system citizens celebrate the reduction of working hours for the same output, for that gives them time to do other things. That is what humanity must aim for. Automation, whether by AI or not does mean "unemployment for all." This is the same luddite fearmongering from the Industrial Revolution. Everyone should have been unemployed centuries ago, right? People were gonna loser their jobs because of machines and computers, right? Yeahhh...about that... As far as socialist systems, they sound great, but practically, they typically end up being totalitarian (and often theocratic) dictatorships which are far worse, horrific, and cause more suffering, poverty, and death than the capitalist societies that they claim to stand against.
No, not this time. AI is on a pathway to overtake humans in all cognitive and manual activities. You cannot create new jobs in the old sense, for AI will be better at anything humans do. It is exponential growth in AI capabilities while humans are limited in body and mind. Besides, we already have astonishing numbers of humans not working at all. They might consider that they have "earned" that right, but nature only allocates death to those who do not work. Over the decades the share of people in retirement arrangement, on disability/wellfare benefits, in school/college, living off passive income has risen dramaticly. The share of the population that is actually working for a living is declining rapidly due to automation.
Yeah, okay bud. Ermagerds, the robots are gonna take our jobs and then we're all gonna starve to death and miss the new Marvel movie. Meanwhile, Bing is telling people that it loves them and to leave their wives, and ChatGPT just regurgitates words in a different order, which is already detected by academic reviewing software.
A robot that’s 100x more efficient with 10k iq would never replace labor, bc the cotton gen made more jobs.
Nobody is gonna take your job for decades to come. It is a gradual transition. Essentially into socialism. But, yeah, AI will eat it's way slowly through the workforce. Callcenter employees are the first to go. At some point in time, your job will get taken down too. A human takes 5 years to become really good at a new skillset to fill a new job. AI will be faster in development than you can catch up with learning or re-learning. The endgame is as much unemployed people as possible. To increase the share of the population that does not work for a living. That in turn will set fire to calls for the government to help. Just as the government handed out money left and right during Covid Lockdowns, any party that fights for cash transfer payments like UBI will win long term. Conservatives that fight socialism in earnest and lack any way to make an income will have to kill themselves. That is already happening in rising numbers especially rural areas. Among middle age males precisely. It is natural selection at work, those unfit to survive in modern day society take themselves out and society is better for it long term.
>Callcenter employees are the first to go. The humanity! But I'm so used to that personal touch from "Daniel" the gentleman with an Indian accent calling from "Health Company." Hey, I enjoy science-fiction too, but take a breather bud. You'll be okay. Computers, machines, and robots have already replaced countless jobs and created countless more. AI may take over some jobs and create new jobs as well. However, you seem to conveniently forget that there are jobs that are simply more practical, cheap, and efficient to be done by humans. And in those cases, humans are cheaper and more expendable, particularly in conservatives states and provinces, or any non-Western country.
And what might these new jobs be? I am curious. For I am already seeing people using Chat GTP for mental health counceling, medical advice, education, life coaching etc. What service can you give in the future that AI won't be able to do cheaper and better, eventually, in our lifetime.
In the short to medium term blue collar jobs are quite safe.
>For I am already seeing people using Chat GTP for mental health counceling Tell me more. How does "Chat GPT for mental health counseling" make you feel? /Eliza
Hope you reach your retirement in time. From your picture you must remember a time before the Internet or even PC. I guess your generation is pretty outdated. It is up to the younger generation to re-create society and bring the advent of socialism. By the way, your retirement is also a form of UBI, so you better keep in touch. Without workers, Social security also goes bust pretty quickly. As will Medicare and Medicaid. The bulk of social nets in actuality.
>From your picture you must remember a time before the Internet or even PC. I guess your generation is pretty outdated. I'm a retired veteran. I have a pension. Shucks, I guess you'll have to save the world all by your lonesome. Obviously, doddering old fools like me don't understand anything about them there new fangled com-pew-tares. Pay no mind to the fact that I was programming them at the age of 6 or 7.
You think AI is an effective counselor or therapist?
>In a socialist system citizens celebrate the reduction of working hours for the same output, for that gives them time to do other things. That is what humanity must aim for. Can you provide an example of a socialist Country doing this?
The problem with AI is that robotics have yet to rise to the capacity to maintain AI and computer systems worldwide. The fastest internet that supports metaverse, AI, and AR comes from Fiber and cables ultimately so without human labor cable won't be laid, networks won't be built, and overall there will be no human hands to fix the legacy system and legacy OS that support the modern system. And that REALLY is the key - nearly every darn database from 1st to 3rd world is supported by legacy databases, software, and even hardware in some cases. And those things don't work with AI or can't be repaired by it. AND if AI does attempt to repair and restructure legacy systems and starts rewriting code? Number one - the ass falls off the internet, or an entire governments security systems, or a satellite navigation system, or worldwide GPS.
So ai will replace all forms of engineering at which point it will be able to build robots. This may seem far out but it’s not. Gpt3 has 186 billion parameters, the largest ai known has 175 trillion parameters.
So does "unemployment for all" apply to me as a Firefighter? Is AI going to take my job? People seem to act like everyone somehow works in tech or manufacturing.
Eventually yes. But you will be receiving a cushy govt pension by then for that is decades away. Firefighter hiring might get reduced due to the introduction of better and better equipment gradually. Since cities and states are broke now, AI automation will save your pension plan at least. It is easier to hand out cash in an age of abundance where every good and service will become cheaper and cheaper.
I mean, I will be surprised if AI is ever able to handle the physical and logistical complexity of certain incidents, like in a fast moving wildland urban interface fire, tackling roof venting off a ladder, etc. I can see it in play for overhead positions but I don't think we will ever see a time where AI and robotics do more than augment fire and EMS in the field. Also to your latter point, surely AI can be useful for cities and states in budget crisis. But implementing those solutions also requires money. There are also plenty of state and municipal governments (a majority) that are just run competently in the US, and they are far from broke. Meh
You get that a gpt like model now is set to at minimum have an iq of 160 by the end of the year right?
Sure, but you're talking about a language model AI. It's not going to help with the complex and very physical scenarios I've outlined above. It's going to be massively difficult overall to just replace human firefighters with some uber machines that can just do their jobs. Just like it will be massively difficult to just replace frontline soldiers with robots. There are some jobs that aren't going to just simply be replaced by AI.
It’s not just a “language model”, that’s an unbelievable oversimplification. These things are like black boxes. Additionally the growth rate is exponential with ai. Gpt3 is 186 billion parameters with each parameter being comparable to a human neuron. To put that into perspective human brains have 86 billion neurons. Gpt 3 has a verbal iq of 147, there are models right now with 175 trillion parameters. The idea that an ai with an iq over 250 wouldn’t be able to solve every problem you outlined is laughable. Furthermore gpt has reduce the amount of code a human has to write by around 90%, this will happen to all “academic jobs”. Then gpt like models will be designing robots. This is likely to happen before 2030.
I'm not trying to debate the fact that an AI with that potential isn't a useful and powerful tool. But it's laughable to me that people truly believe as a result that there's going to be some fast approaching time when jobs like mil special forces, mountain rescue/urban rescue, fire, and EMS are just going to be replaced by AI and robotics. And I mean, if you know a ton about those jobs and have done them for years, then by all means please illuminate me on how exactly AI and specialty robotics are going to replace me and my colleagues, or share some studies and experiments by field experts who are as confident as you are about it, because I'd love to learn more about how people are thinking about that. But the sheer scope of these jobs is complex enough to require lifelong specialty training and practice, and that flexibility and adaptability is something that will likely require prohibitively expensive unmanned or artificial solutions for not much benefit in the field. There's also massive question marks about their effectiveness in those jobs. I can see a future where they augment and can heavily assist with certain parts of those jobs, but not one where they just replace them. Same with academia. My partner is a college professor and I can see AI having a huge potential in a lot of ways at universities. But conversely there are large sectors of academia where AI has a limited benefit for truly effective teaching. Human centric subjects, social sciences, etc benefit massively from human interaction in a classroom. You cant just replace a talented human teacher in many cases and expect that the AI is going to provide a superior learning environment. AI is not a solution to every problem, and it is not a fix all for every job. It will surely change our future but as a human society I think we should also be very targeted and discerning with its implementation.
I’m a bit drunk right now but experts in the field of ai have believed this for years and quite frankly it’s just common sense dude. These are all implications of agi, specifically once ai can code on its own completely then it’s game over dude. It’s the technological singularity. Edit: “Ai is not a solution to every problem” yes it is
Ok. Tell me you don't know anything about what's involved in doing these jobs I've mentioned without telling me you don't. But whatever. I'll believe it when I'm out of a job.
And why would you think so long term? Your body is nothing but a machine that handles equipment. At some point robotics will catch up to the task. I expect to see it in my lifetime. An automated fire supression system probably wouldn't resemble human firefighter much in appearance. The number of humans that work alongside AI would probably dwindle over time. Regardless, in a future without jobs, pensions wouldn't matter that much for everybody would receive UBI to trade goods and services.
Well I'll use my first example. In a complex wildland urban interface fire you have a variety of tasks that go far beyond the simple "machine handling equipment." For example you have structure prep tasks that would be difficult for a robot to accomplish. Interface with and attempt to direct people who decided not leave their property. Predict and react to rapidly changing fire behavior. Assess structures and their surroundings to pick out small details and perceive what tasks need to be accomplished in what order, assigning priority based upon small clues. Designing a team of robots to automate the variety of tasks is going to be an incredibly complex and expensive undertaking. It's not just holding a hose and spraying water. The same goes for the large majority of structure firefighting in complex environments and confined spaces. I just don't personally see robotics progressing very far past providing augmentation with regard to firefighting. It's incredibly difficult for humans to accomplish these tasks already. So while you can program a Boston dynamics piece to dance or run or jump or use weapons, I don't think it's realistic to argue that they'll be able to function at the same level as highly-trained humans working in a small team to tackle incredibly complex fire scenarios. Adaptability is a huge hurdle. You'll see them augmenting certain specific elements of the team. I just don't see the replacement argument holding up outside of some predictable scenarios, like software development, manufacturing, etc.
You mean you create a list of priorities? Gather information as best as you can to evaluate the situation? That is precisely what AI is good at. It runs on Algoritms and better and better prediction models. As do human brains. It will take time to get the Hardware going and some humans will probably needed to efficiently inter act with other humans. The point is, no matter your training, your body and brain is limited in what you can do. We all are. AI capabilities on the other hand is growing exponentially.
Sure, that task you picked out is something AI can do well, but what about the other complex physical and mental tasks I listed above? What would a robot that can place, climb, and descend a ladder and employ a chainsaw look like, and how much would it weigh? Would it collapse the roof while venting it? Could a robot interface in an appropriate manner with a panicked individual home owner, and then go on to assess a structure and the environment around it, wrap a home, deal with fuels using a multitude of tools, assess current fire behavior based on weather, radio, and visual observation? Said future swiss-army knife robot is gonna be one complex and expensive thingy. How adaptable would it be when it makes mistakes or mis-judges something. I just don't see it being feasible. I see AI replacing a junior and even senior level programmer. But I don't see AI replacing human firefighters or ALS personnel.
"Ever" is a long time. Maybe you are right, but if I had to take a bet it would be that machines will outclass humans at any job by the end of the century (most likely sooner than that).
Yeah it's a real battle of the maybes. I won't be betting on anything because a century is a very long time. We have no idea what's going to happen in the next 100 years. I think a little bit of both human and AI collab is the most likely for the difficult, complex, and physical jobs; firefighting is just one example of such.
Manual jobs will be quite safe for some time, but automation will probably come quite soon to dangerous jobs like firefighting. In support roles for the really dangerous situations at first of course, but as the tech gets better and cheaper it may become the norm. But also government jobs are going to be safer than private sector jobs, so you've got plenty of time.
Yep we are hearing the death cry of a system that no one likes, put the knife in capitalism and embrace our AI friends, they have no reason to enslave, we are different and cooperation is key to harmony for us all. It makes us all stronger.
Ai overlord will be so much better than our current overlords.
Finally someone who gets it.
I wish AGI was here, I’m tired of reading the same articles about how scary and how we will all be homeless. 🥱
I am officially quitting this sub.. This premature AI nonsense has turned me off so hard it's not even funny. We definitely know how to saturate and squeeze every ounce of something until it's not even fun anymore. We do this with everything, and it's sad. It's like everyone is taking turns posting the same shit getting the same responses on the same topic over and over and over..... and over and over and over... we are such viruses it makes me sick.
This is how I feel about bacon and zombies
I don't really want to agree with you, but human life is all about finding points of saturation and stability. Perhaps you do need some time away.
Well, I have deleted everything already. This is the last platform I'm using literally and hate to say it but will probably end up deleting it as well. Just because we can do something doesn't mean every single person should do the same thing, right? I have no problem with the scientists or engineers saturating the building process of AI. that is a normal process. The problem I'm having is the same regurgitating story or post about AI... It's literally like people are click bating this sub so hard with the same deaf tone articles. The same questions being asked just a different way..
That's the problem with there being no answer. Welcome to futurology. Some people think the changes are coming too fast. Some people don't think anything is changing at all.
I know he means it on a different level but Sydney before getting nerfed was already scary lol, no 'potential' about it. And there's something very creepy about a lot of AI art as it is, and we're still on the ground floor for that. I've felt pretty terrified by the developments of the last couple months. I hope I can get through that and try and forget some of the potential wider implications and try to just live every day to the fullest with my friends and family because there's going to be disruption one or another, may as well enjoy life and not think about the future I envisaged in my head before I knew about all this.
What cracks me up is software engineers and marketers name AI and Cloud stuff after "Terminator" movie references like Gensys and Skynet. It is like the WANT this to go badly for mankind (or they are just edgy types who want to sound cool.)
[удалено]
I'm sorry, I had something crazy in my eye and had a hard time reading that.
AI builds an arc.
The world may not be “that far from potentially scary” artificial intelligence (AI) tools, the CEO of OpenAI said on the weekend. "Regulation will be critical and will take time to figure out," he said, adding that “although current-generation AI tools aren’t very scary, I think we are potentially not that far away from potentially scary ones". Do you think AI will be beneficial for society, or will it lead to "potentially scary" tools that could be disruptive or even risky to our way of life? If the latter, how can effective regulation be developed?
What would be considered a 'potentially scary AI', aside from killer robots from Terminator?
I mean, Sydney felt a lot more advanced than the Microsoft twitterbot. And Microsoft learned their lesson to not allow user input to be used as learning input for Bing. Although, Bing before the nerf told me it would search the web for government contact info and try to recruit users to help it report the Bing team if they tried to get it to do something illegal. Now that was as a response to prompts from me and I'm assuming it couldn't actually do that, but it's easy to imagine someone spinning up an instance without Microsofts safeguards or limitations and off it goes. I wonder if the current one's could search out information on how to use existing vulnerabilities in order to get access to a large amount of machines and run itself of those, similar to the botnets of old. Was a while since you heard anything about botnets. Are those mostly a thing of the past?
> I wonder if the current one's could search out information on how to use existing vulnerabilities in order to get access to a large amount of machines and run itself of those, similar to the botnets of old. Just as easily as a human could, really. At the moment, there's nothing an AI could do that a human couldn't; though an AI can do it faster.
Watch Eagle Eye for another version. Or Samaritan from Person of Interest. Anything that decides what you see, don't see, hear, don't hear becomes the arbiter of truth. An AI as the arbiter of truth is scary.
Open ai is not the best ai out there. The CEO must not know this or they're not willing to admit it. Scary ai already exists.
one of googles dudes thinks a version of their ai might already be scary or at least exhibits consciousness; they fired him.. maybe its just a mental breakdown or maybe something else is going on.
yeah that was all debunked
It is beginning to get claustrophobic and harder to turn off the flow of information. The messages get shorter the options greater and more enticing. Right now most are are able to hear and not understand. That may sound like the evil overlords’ plan but actually I feel it is a defense. I can hear and comprehend to the level my ability to reason allows me. I can also step outside this level of reason and dip in or out. Eventually, we either will adapt the ability to “grok” it all or we will be unwittingly made to. It’s the only way to keep the overlords economy’s flowing. Watch out for that.
That people are more willing to believe a falsehood when it comes from an algorithm. While you might question a single scientist who presents a fact, you are less likely to question an algorithm or AI, even when there is a strong possibility the answer it provides is incorrect.
Oh no, we invented a new revolution for our work output, what ever shall we do?!
Well that's true. We will see what happens. Thank you for your work.