5 ms·
> The very best outcomes involve us intentionally and collectively turning our attention away from this technology. To expand on the "pure fantasy" sister comm
by teiferer 4d ago
> The very best outcomes involve us intentionally and collectively turning our attention away from this technology.
To expand on the "pure fantasy" sister comment: There is just no way this will happen. It's in the spirit of "we can just stop all wars" and "we can just end world hunger". Technically it's very easy to do. Socially it's impossible to do. Unless you ignore realities.
- calgoo 4d agoThe danger lies with someone asking the machine to solve those two questions and it decides to cheat the solution. Launching every nuke in the world stops all wars, just like wiping out 99% of humanity ends world hunger.
- carlob 4d agoI don't think killing people solves world hunger, we already produce enough food to feed everyone, it's just not evenly distributed.
- ako 4d agoThere can be more than one solution.
- unrented7977 4d agoCan't be hungry if you're dead
- teiferer 4d agoI don't see how that is more dangerous than two crazy head of states deciding that it's time for armageddon. The outcome is the same (99% of humans dead), it's equally easy to technically not do it (don't press the button, don't continue with LLMs), but also equally hard to regulate away given the real world. And that was my point.
- ako 4d agoYou forgot “we can stop climate change”…
- wartywhoa23 4d agoYep, and "we can flatten the curve", in a tone that brooks no objection. But when it comes to trillions in AI money - nope, sorry, we can't, flimsy, feeble us. It's all going per the agenda.