People who are not paying attention to how the “AI” will be used, what it automates and enables at scale, think the concerns are overblown. They are mistaken.
People who do not (or cannot) consider the second and third order effects which are easy to spot high probability outcomes, think the concerns are overblown. They are mistaken.
People who see that hype cycles exist or that doom gloomers exist or etc, but cannot discern what is different in this context than those, think the concerns are overblown. They are mistaken.
Human societies have not kept pace with technology (how could they?), and the gap is widening and worsening damned near weekly at this point. Those who for whatever reason are unable to observe this arc and gap think the concerns are overblown. They are mistaken.
I have never seen so many otherwise intelligent people switch off their thinking all at once over anything like they have on this. It’s no doubt driven by the novelty of it all, but it is 100% shortsighted, dangerous, and there will be clearly forseeable but ignored consequences. Because “they are mistaken”.
I think the hard part is, yeah, I see there's like a million ways this could turn out poorly for society but what the heck am I going to do? I can't control what OpenAI/Meta/Google does so why does me raging on the internet about it, instead of just learning to understand the tech and using it, gain me?
It's like boycotting walmart. All you're going to do, if you personally boycott walmart, is deprive yourself of the convenience. It's not going to hurt walmart in the slightest. Even if a percentage of people did it, it's not like walmart is going to struggle at least not in a way that makes the boycott useful.
I think the idea is, yes, you could control what OpenAI/Meta/Google do, if you could organize at large enough scale. We still live in a democracy, and if the will of enough of the people was to ban or regulate AI, that would happen.
Of course, internet-raging is easier than actually organizing enough political will to influence a legislature, so that's what people do instead. Same for the boycott-Walmart argument; if enough people did it, it would push Walmart to change their ways, but organizing that is hard, and so they do what they think is their part and get self-satisfaction from that and stop there.
> I see there's like a million ways this could turn out poorly for society but what the heck am I going to do?
This is, for me, a key issue. It means that we're powerless about this -- if it will be a disaster (and I personally think that the odds are uncomfortably high that it will), it's one that's being forced on us all.
The only realistic thing I can think to do is to engage in the same sort of disaster preparedness that we should all be doing anyway. Particularly when it comes to employment and income.
Powerlessness (real or perceived) is a terrible place to be, and itself can be the source of real disaster.
People who do not (or cannot) consider the second and third order effects which are easy to spot high probability outcomes, think the concerns are overblown. They are mistaken.
People who see that hype cycles exist or that doom gloomers exist or etc, but cannot discern what is different in this context than those, think the concerns are overblown. They are mistaken.
Human societies have not kept pace with technology (how could they?), and the gap is widening and worsening damned near weekly at this point. Those who for whatever reason are unable to observe this arc and gap think the concerns are overblown. They are mistaken.
I have never seen so many otherwise intelligent people switch off their thinking all at once over anything like they have on this. It’s no doubt driven by the novelty of it all, but it is 100% shortsighted, dangerous, and there will be clearly forseeable but ignored consequences. Because “they are mistaken”.