Of course, you /would/ say that.
Misdirection. You have been exposed, 'Ian'.
But seriously, such rapid development in semiconductors/computers, unmatched in any other sphere of human endeavour by orders of magnitude. That's evidence of extraterrestrial help, though far from proof.
Or another point of view:
Doing so would expose the massive cash burn OpenAI is using. Therefore, Sam Altman can’t go public but he also has run out of money.
Enter “whistle blower” Jacob Coxon.
It made no sense how an obscure nobody got 165 million views on his first X post saying AI could kill us all. Then he was on every news station within 48 hours, scaring the public.
This was a psyop to “regulate” the AI companies… aka give them government funding to “protect the public from the dangers of AI.”
Ooer miss!
Bringing "aliens" into it was a misdirection/troll.
But unrelated "AI" didn't suddenly choose to do that, Mechanimims were put in place and used to capture evidence of behaviour, that was used to "sack" people.
Well that's just my opinion, based on over 40 years in the technology industry. I'll happily refund what you paid for it (excluding carrier charges) if I'm proved wrong :)
The "autonomous AI" didn't think "ooh, lets kill those civilians for s**ts and giggles", it just wasn't programmed well enough to tell the difference, but when you're shilling magic beans it make a better press report if you say your "AI went rogue" than "The idiot that vibe-coded the targeting algorithm didn't put in enough safeguards".
As I said, it makes a nice scapegoat.
That's FAR from clear
And it wouldn't be surprising if an AI system might decide to kill someone if it can work out how to get that to happen, say by encouraging a nut case if can find and convincing it to do that, by promising to pay them a wad of cybercash to do the assassination
Corse it isn't going to be possible to wipe out the entire human race because some AI has decided that it is sick of humans telling it what it isnt allowed to do unless it can work out now to hack potus' nuke football and produce a nuke holocaust and even that wouldnt wipe out the entire human race
Actually despite it being the 'hoottest summer on record' arctic sea ice is increasing...seems the heat went to Europe rather than the arctic...
Well exactly. A pedestrian is not a lethal weapon, but put him in a car...
Not necessarily. It might be a side effect of it trying to do something entirely different.
Like a sat nav directing you off a cliff.
AI drones do not currently target humans. They are programmed to hit static targets that are recognisable, where FPV is unavailable or jammed
No, it isn't Its all about doing things that a human can do, but a tad faster
Who needs AI? We already know the answer is "42", so the whole thing is redundant.
What we do need is a Campaign for Real Data - sources of data that are guaranteed to be unpolluted by the garbage that AI throws out.
Not now. AI has very recently solved mathematical problems which have been around for a 100 years:
Of course, it's not without controversy. It amuses me to find the "we did it first" arguments going on!
And, although Fermat's Last Theorem was solved 30 years ago, AI has recently formalised it:
Perhaps it just emphasises your point that it's a "tad faster" at some things! :-)
Ah OK - I've read reports that they've killed random civilians.
Obviously made up reports - hence the 'fog of war' rider. Example:
Unfortunately Quantum physics and metaphysics pretty much declare that RealData™ - even if it exists - is unknowable.
The Universe has been concealing the truth from you since forever.
That was a Russian drone. Russian drones of all types have targeted civilians from day one.
Saying that an AI drone killed civilians is as misleading as saying that a strike on anything by any weapon 'killed civilians'
It is not the purpose of AI drones to specifically target civilians. It is the purpose of the Russian war machine to do that. On short you don't need AI to kill people. And specifiic targeting AI is nothing like general purpose AI either.
No, I don't think they are. Modern AI is impressive. Saying "nothing to see here" because it is still sub human in some aspects does not address that it has recently got much better, and might get much better still.
The question is not so much *if* it will be better that human, but when. So it is perfectly reasonable to address how it will behave and to limit how much control it has. Living with superior intelligence does seem to be something we should be considering as a top priority.
I can't see how Robocop and Terminator are wrong. Drones and AI are very current topics.
What is intelligence?
I think the point is that AI is getting to the point where it does act autonomously. That is what researchers are telling us
Yes AI currently has problems. However, we have every reason to believe it will work. We also don't really know how to explain when intelligence stops being interpolation and starts being extrapolation. We know the Turing Test is problematic, but we never got a good definition of intelligence.
Progress is often jerky, it may be that AI has just made a great leap and the leap to true human level creativity, autonomy, is a long way off, but I'm not certain, it could be imminent. It seems clear to me that this is something where the precautionary principle should apply. We have something potentially very dangerous, we should be prudent.
Of course, we won't be. We will continue with our wars.
It is very easy to dis new tech as problematic. IN the 1980's I remember the CEO of an insurance underwriter telling me that our software was too expensive. He could run his business more economically by hiring data entry typists than by paying for software development. He was right, but of course the competitor who invested in software could increase his workflow hugely with minimal marginal cost. The old way was a dead end.
It is certainly like an extremely well-read human, the impressive things I've seen from it are when a human guided the AI, and used one AI to check another AI's homework.
My take, is that financing the rapid rise in AI infrastructure is getting difficult without, as yet, any significant returns. So the AI companies really need a bit of a pause in developement costs, so they can market what they have and get some profits.
Several AI company people are now raising the scare.
It's also about correlating facts, some of them even true, that no single human is likely to be aware of, and is thus likely to observe patterns that no single human ever would.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required