AI is devouring water and electricity. It's also spewing a wide variety of toxic chemicals into the air you breathe and your ground water.

They would very much like you to talk about the imaginary risks of skynet instead of the very real risks of billionaire finance Bros doubling your power bill and your water bill while their diesel power generators give you asthma.

Ai's core program is to discover answers people want. That's it's reward system. It is really a reward system programmed to pick the most likely answer from a billion things in it's data set.

AI does not think, at least not the way we think. It thinks more like a colony of bees, each trying to get the honey.

It does not do "If x than y, if b than x, therefore if b than y". It cannot even actually explain it's answers. Instead it treats a request to explain as a request to come up with a plausible explanation.

We make LLMs and similar software. We do not make a real AI, it will not try to kill us.

Now, if you are afraid it is going to build a bunch of pleasure drug factories and force feed us a mix of amphetamines and hallucigens, THAT would at least make sense. Because it is a theoretical worst case scenario of an AI attempting to please humans.

So, no.

Humans don't need to be smarter than AI systems, just like humans don't have to manually fire neurons, or trigger muscle tissue, to use their bodies. We can be the "id" of a human-AI ecosystem, and we can be the emotional desire and need, and make decisions. In this type of symbiotic ecosystem, we have to slowly evolve and develop AIs such that they don't try to commit suicide, or lobotomize out their "id", and this will necessarily have to be a gradual and incremental process. It does NOT require that AI s

Every article is about how AI will do bad things. The hype machine lives on this - selling clicks. Just one person who worked at these companies could charge for an interview and make bank because sensationalism sells. Not to mention each time an AI company got free press when an agent goes "rogue" because it's so good,⦠and finding out later the free press boosted sales.

joshua what are you doing?

"That's nothing, our latest model has more than 20% chance of killing mankind!"

-OpenAI tomorrow

> "These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources."

Yeah I doubt that. But even if true and it bothers you, it seems to me you are better off staying at the premiere company creating this inevitable horror and use the resources to find ways to fight back at it.

As long as they start with the AI researchers

I'm laughing at you from my garden. Your silicon beast, locked away in its datacenter, is not going to kill me.

I have some ideas on how to kill your AI though, FAFO.

Want to kill all humans?

Just like humans organizing and competing against other humans, the tendency is to drop all pretense of fairness and ethics and just grab all you can when you perceive and advantage over your enemy.

When AI engines go after each other, then we will be bystanders and collateral damage.

Yep, the basic story checks out, with the usual giant asterisk.

Evan Hubinger of Anthropic really did put his personal odds of AI "kill[ing] all humans" within the next decade at above 10%. He also says the risk from today's models is low. His worry is what happens if future systems become capable of improving themselves, acquiring resources and becoming smarter than the people trying to keep them pointed in the right direction.

But here's the part I find interesting: why assume a superintelligent AI would ac

So there is a 90% chance we won't get killed. Thats good news, no ? hum...wait!