AI has had like 14 Chernobyl moments. Wasn’t the US using AI to bomb Iran? That include a whole school of girls IIRC. And guess what? No one cares.
While I agree with you, the vast majority of users are still AI pilled.
Those users are what they are scared of loosing.
And why would they be scared of losing them if they are pilled? In about six to ten more months, those idiots (the pilled ones) are going to be so idiotized they won’t know even how to put their trousers on without asking ChatGPT, if they haven’t fallen that low already.
Maybe those are going to be the casualties. When AI tells them to run in traffic or something.
Hmmm I mean I’m all for them running into traffic because Siri told them that’s how you boil water for tea; the problem is the other, innocent people involved in a crash.
Most of them are driving SUVs so big they won’t even feel it and staring at the phone, so there won’t even be any ptsd.
Its more likely that they will feel it if they are driving an SUV because of crash comparability.
I vote we speed this process along.
Chernobyl spread significant radiation over 8 million people with effects lasting for decades / generations. It spread detectable radiation across most of the globe.
I truly feel for the tragedy of the schoolgirls, but as Stalin said: one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. Chernobyl was a statistic level event, so many individual tragedies that people can’t feel them anymore.
So we need one cool death? Basically another killer like the one that brought in the whole Luigi case.
Okay but deep learning for image object detection and large language models are absolutely different things
And they are both powerful tools and can be used to whatever means you want. Good or evil… or just means. Not everything has to have a good or bad label
It does not matter how they can be used. “Can” is only potential, and that’s classical accelerationistbro excuse. What matters is the actions, and right now the actions are that both are moved primarily by an elite of oligarchs, pedophiles, thieves and genocides, at the cost of our water, health, environment, privacy, sanity and society.
Chainsaws can be used well, or poorly. People who don’t know what they are doing with chainsaws are much more likely to experience bad results.
Pretty much by definition, nobody knew how to use LLMs at all ten years ago. Most people who are using them today have less than a year’s experience in use case fields that didn’t exist 2 years ago.
Not to mention, people who don’t know how to use chainsaws have a much higher risk of harming other people by using chainsaws.
a much higher risk of harming other people by using chainsaws.
That all depends on where you let them work.
If an idiot with a chainsaw drops a tree on himself in the woods and nobody is around to hear him scream…
I wish! An idiot wouldn’t even know how to use a chainsaw all around a tree to make it fall; incorrectly or not.
Never underestimate the capabilities of idiots. An idiot can render a bowling ball useless with a plastic spoon. Matter of fact, last time I got a ride to a bowling alley an idiot had rendered the seat belt in the car useless with a plastic spoon.
All of these articles are for ai companies. Ooh, look at our scary powerful ai’s. We’re defenitly super close to agi. Please giv e us more money.
You really don’t think there could be a possibility of a horrific consequence if AI is given the responsibility of managing real world systems?
Of course that’s a possibility, but AI does not have responsibility. The question is who does?
Do I blame a train for hitting someone who steps onto railroad tracks when there’s a train approaching? It’s a machine. It doesn’t have responsibilities or opinions or agency. It does what it has been built to do, in exactly the manner that anyone with sufficient understanding of its operating principles could tell you, because that’s what machines do. The person or persons interacting with the machine is not absolved of any responsibility by how complex or inscrutable the machine is. It’s still a machine.
The question is, who is responsible for the person stepping onto the railroad tracks when there was a train approaching? Was the person trying to end their own life? Maybe it’s their responsibility. Or maybe the crossing signals failed and told them it was safe, and they did not realize a train was approaching. Maybe there were too many trees or signs or construction that was blocking their view. Is the train company responsible for that? Maybe. Did the brakes fail due to poor inspections or substandard work during the last maintenance? Maybe. Did the train have plenty of time to stop and the engineer was not paying attention? Maybe. These are all people, and groups of people, who may have responsibility. The only thing that’s certain is: The train doesn’t.
We, as a society, need to decide who is responsible for the possibility of a horrific consequence arising from the use of these sort of machines. Is it the person using the machine? The people who made the machine in the first place? The people who put it in a place where this person could easily use it? By assigning responsibility, ideally in advance of any horrific consequences, that provides a clear incentive for the people we deem responsible to actually start acting responsible and take the appropriate measures to avoid such horrific consequences that they might be held responsible for.
The problem is: people have been shirking responsibility and blaming “the computer” for decisions since there have been decisions coming out of computers. This is not a unique story.
Is there any case where this is currently unclear? Which part needs to be debated?
Morally I think it’s reasonably clear in many (not all) cases, but it can become complicated. Who is responsible when the inherently ineffective safety guardrails fail? What about someone who intentionally uses a bypass technique to jailbreak and escape the guardrails? Who is responsible for an open weights model that had some of the guardrails removed or rendered even more ineffective either intentionally or by accident?
Legally, it is an entirely different story, and it is absolutely and entirely unclear. Several cases are already before the courts and I don’t think we’ll know where any of them end up within this decade, and even if they do receive some token legal judgement against them eventually, that just sets the stage for those legal responsibilities to be overturned by new legislation. These are companies that are positioning themselves as bulwarks in the new frontier of economic warfare, information warfare and physical warfare, they are critical national security and geopolitical assets, they have infiltrated governments at all levels and are receiving direct protection from same.
Do you believe they will ever be truly held accountable for the damage they’ve already done to society, much less the damage they will do over time? That’s part of responsibility, and it needs to be debated because that’s the only way to even start to hold them accountable for anything. We need to hold them accountable with words first if we want to have any hope of holding them accountable in any other way. And these are my words to help start doing that.
The interesting aspect is that AI companies are huge, too big to fail as they say, so the courts historically have tended to pin responsibility downstream from those whales more on the users of their products. The question in today’s environment is: will victims of AI abuse be blamed, like jaywalkers, or will the blame fall further upstream on the AI operators who are profiting from its use, thereby exposing their profits to assignment as damages to the injured.
Giving AI responsibility is like giving a chainsaw responsibility for the trees it cuts and where they fall.
Anybody using AI then turning around and pointing at it saying “it wasn’t me, it was the tool!!!” is just as culpable as someone who sets their car on cruise control at 80 miles per hour and proceeds to take a nap.
This has already been happening.
Lavender & Where’s Daddy: How Israel Used AI to Form Kill Lists & Bomb Palestinians in Their Homes
Chernobyl blew up because they were dicking around with an unsafe design.
This analogue is very apt.
An unsafe design that wasnt even fully tested.
Still bang on.
Look, AI is only measuring 3.6 roentgens. Not great, not terrible.
Delusional take. We, the people pretty much hate AI already. We hate how it‘s utilized against us.
People weren’t wildly supportive of nuclear power before Chernobyl / TMI either, but after? 40 years of virtual moratorium on new construction in most of the world, absolute rollback in Germany. We’ve continued to poision ourselves with coal and wreck the climate with CO2 instead of learning to do nuclear right. If building of new plants weren’t so difficult, older and less stable plants like Fukushima could have been decomissioned before having major problems.
Except in this case, we’re turning down the advancement of a technology that hurts humanity in every conceivable way and poisons the environment.
a technology that hurts humanity in every conceivable way and poisons the environment.
That’s how I feel about Bitcoin, which, by the way, STILL consumes more energy in its datacenters than AI.
If only we had sunshine and wind we could use them for power
how many of the people who hate ai still use microsoft and google products?
Are these “top ai researchers” real people?
These top AI researchers are just investment bankers. So no, not real people
Real grifters.
AI vibecoded nuclear plant. What could go wrong? You just need to add “no nuclear meltdown” at the end of the prompt.
Wasn’t that just the plot of N.U.K.E.E.?
There is info that Microsoft vibecoded an OS…
I’ll worry about ‘AI’ when something that can legitimately be mistaken as intelligence is demonstrated.
In the meantime, these explosively imprecise, statistically luke-warm, grey goo extrusion sphincters need to be exclusively opt-in, and not forced on anyone who hasn’t explicitly consented to a lobotomy.
Issue is, they’re already trying to use it for things it shouldn’t be used for…
Name one thing it should be used for, where there’s not a better, lower-cost, lower-risk alternative.
I’d say “You got me!”, but I legit having an issue with finding a usecase for LLMs.
Why wait? What is with people trying to act so slick and cool?
Yes, it sucks, but it’s a) being used as if it’s intelligent, which is arguably much worse, and b) going to eventually get to a point where it’s at least not terrible(at its job, specifically, as it’s pretty bad for a lot of things).
For a personal reason, I’m worried about it because it’s very likely filtering my CV based on a work gap that’s only getting worse because my CV is getting filtered. It’s not intelligent, but HR companies and departments are using it for that anyway.
It’s already not bad for certain specific, niche applications. Check out PlantNet. It’s awesome. You can take a picture of a plant, and it’ll identify it for you. No micro-transactions; you don’t even have to log in. It just works.
Obviously, that isn’t one of the applications of Machine Learning that people have a problem with. It’s the LLMs filtering out your resume or spying on you or producing slop.
going to eventually get to a point where it’s at least not terrible
That is far from inevitable, and that’s even more true if you’re talking about existing LLM technology.
Yeah, this article is promoting the doomsday AI myth which is the narrative that these companies want us to go with, because it makes their products seem powerful. In reality, people are already turning against this technology en masse — not because they’re afraid it’ll turn into Skynet, but because it sucks shit.
Don’t worry about “AI”, worry about the idiots who will give the imprecise statistical output extruder a gun.
Like any other toxic ingredient, anything made with even an iota of AI-generated content in it should be flagged, and it should be mandatory for sites to provide an easily user-accessible way to filter that horseshit out.
Data is often called the new oil, but I’d argue it more closely resembles uranium.
LLM’s are like asbestos, a carcinogen later generations will need to carefully remove from the environment they’ve inherited.
What is currently labelled as slop will more accurately be treated like irradiated sludge.
How about they stop building the torment nexus?
Torment does not create torment. It’s being created by the torment factory within the nexus. Nexus was not valued.
This take is a denial of current reality.
They’re already using “AI” for genocide in Palestine, etc.
This is how capitalism always develops and uses “technology”.
deleted by creator
Yeah, but the thing is…there is absolutely nothing stopping Iran, Hezbollah or Hamas from developing their own AI.
The technology needed to develop AI that can sabotage infrastructure, spread disinformation, develop autonomous weapons etc is already out there.
Whatever advantage the US and Israel had when it comes to military applications of AI, is quickly disappearing.
“Top AI researcher” I can no longer read those words without Doofy voice 😂
Probability of unhinged techbro bs is around 115%
They’re always going on about how dangerous their AI is.
“Our hey our AI found 3,000 0-day security vulnerabilities in top software, we’re only giving it to top software companies so that they can patch their products before we release”
Was double-tapping a school not enough?
Not so much an AI thing as much as an American thing. Americans and Israelis love doing that shit.
It was a school of some desert people far away. So it’s basically irrelevant to the citizen of The Great US Empire.
This “AI is inevitable” mindset is the most rapey shit ever.
the founding father of modern ‘civilisation’
It certainly would explain some of Musk’s and Thiel’s insane brain farts.
That implies an actual AI when the truth is in current form human error using the tool behind it.
Personally I am more concerned by it will be used by design of the techbros who are pretty open in their desire to be rid of some of the masses. Supporting emerging wars just masks their part….for now.
I don’t think it needs to be an actual AI to cause a “Chernobyl Moment” maybe almost literally.
We have tech bros and random clueless idiots trying to shoehorn these glorified chat bots into basically everything, and an administration that doesn’t seem interested in putting meaningful guardrails on the technology. What happens when it gets put in charge of something it really shouldn’t and starts to hallucinate?
If it somehow ends up in charge of critical safety systems in a nuclear plant? (Remember that some of these tech bros want to have their own plants to power their data centers)
Or air traffic control and causes multiple crashes? (Pretty sure I’ve already seen that idea being floated)
Maybe every cybertruck goes haywire stuck on self-driving mode and they cause tons of damages and deaths for a few hours until their batteries run out.
Maybe it gets used to route navigation in Google maps and it ends up causing massive gridlock in every major city around the world for a day or two
Perhaps it gets used for identifying vehicles on traffic cameras and automatically issuing citations, but ends up citing everyone on the highway for a week whether or not they actually did anything plus a bunch of cars that it hallucinated before someone catches on. Millions of tickets are issued and need to be sorted out, if anyone actually pays the fines refunds need to be issued, some people maybe get their license revoked and maybe even get arrested because of it and all of that needs to be set straight
If any of these kinds of things happen on a big enough scale, I think that could be a Chernobyl Moment for AI
Yes. I just think the concept is more imagined as a sentient entity making an error rather than overconfidence or incompetence with the tool at hand.
And of course we all know it will be used as a scapegoat regardless. Question is what’s the magic number of humans lost to confidence in the machine ratio, before pushback occurs. It sounds horrific even typing it.
I don’t think it’s about number of people I think it’s about perceived sense of urgency on the part of various governments. A lot of people aren’t very happy with AI but the threats are all existential at the moment. The moment something happens all the people who are already not happy with AI will suddenly have a threat to point to and then the governments around the world will have no choice but to act.
Although I suspect the Trump administration will still try and weedle out of regulating anything because they have so much business interest in the industry.
the threats are all existential at the moment.
I think you mean hypothetical. Possibly hypothetically existential.
The moment something happens all the people who are already not happy with AI will suddenly have a threat to point to
and hopefully, that something won’t be an existential threat.
a sentient entity making an error
The popular fictional scenario is the sentient entity not making an error, but making a rational well informed correct assessment - from its non-human perspective. How much power you allow such entities to have is a very real concern. Not that we have seen such entities in operation, yet.
It’s a probability machine, not actual intelligence. If it’s given too much power it’s bound to happen sooner or later.
We’re all probability machines, from bacteria through the great whales.
I did a calculation about the 3rd generation Claude Sonnet engines… they had similar processing capacity to about 6 bumblebees - using millions of times more energy, of course.
