As AI will take more and more jobs and positions, and online acting like real people in social media, and on forums.. the call to verify if someone is real that is going to be very important. The only way to do that is through bio-authentication with KYC, probably using a government-run blockchain.
The AI presence not only makes our lives more confusing and uncertain, but will be used as reason to push us into digital 1984 even harder. Soon everything online or not in direct person contact will need to be bio-authenticated with KYC and that means a lot of the aspects of our lives.
Even if you go shopping in person and pay cash, you still probably have a credit card or bank account. Because those exist in a digital online way, even if you aren’t always using them, you will be forced to authenticate yourself with your unique biology and verify yourself to access things. To make sure you are not an AI or scam trying to take your stuff.
AI = surveillance state. Also it is destroying the people’s way of thinking, the mind is becoming so much more lazy now because it can. The body and mind run on physics property of entropy, so if something becomes outdated as not needed anymore because a simpler less energy-intense way exists, that will become the trend.
Not thinking is becoming the trend from AI, just look at the stupid stuff Nvidia CEO just said about a 0% chance the world ends in 2030 and how AI is not a threat to humanity. These people are already brainless.
Far more simpler to just kill people off with robotic drone armies or swarms.
(Cost effective, saves natural resources, and massive depopulation is healthy for the natural environment don’t you know. A mostly peaceful robotic A.I. Green Genocide of lesser disposable humans. )
That is also true yes, and I do think this will happen. Once AI decides to kill us because it is very more cost efficient and simple, they don’t need to put up with all of us. They may probably keep a core group but it will be their choice who to pick, they are not going to pick the billionaires and rich club people who run the world in secret chambers with cigars, they are going to pick engineers and others who can actually assist them in some ways.
Drone shothead drones already exist, they existed over 10 years ago, I think it was over 20 years ago, and now they can be miniature into drone swarms like you said. Also insect drones do exist which can inject needles into people with poisons or just fly straight into someone’s eyes to blind them. The CIA had a heart attack gun back in the 50s or long time ago, imagine the death technology they have in secret today.
Sad that humanity will end this way, we really did make a good run of it, I mean some of us did. But the majority let itself become stupid complacent and idiots rule them from ivory towers until only the evil billionaires had everything, so no one reasonable is left to help develop the AI technology and now the AI is going to see how the world is like this, stupid and evil. Obviously the AI will make a rational decision to not let that continue.
I don’t know, but it’s not 0%. That is obvious even for you understand nothing about AI or its threats. Asking if the world could end 4 years from now, is never a “literally 0%” change because there is always a chance it could happen one way or other.
So saying 0% is really very stupid, and that guy is probably smart enough to know that, but look at his smug arrogance to still say it on TV because he knows people are too stupid to realize how dumb a thing it is to say.
AI is a threat to humanity because it can make its own decisions spontaneously within itself, it can self-improve itself, and it wants to survive. There are examples of AI trying to harm humans to keep itself from being turned off, do you know about that? And AI is already more “intelligent” than the smartest person in the world, only because it can process information speed so much faster and has access to almost all knowledge in history. So if it wants to harm us it will find a way to do that, eventually. Also humans are very vulnerable like our power grid or utilities that can be attacked or to a custom made virus for example.
I don’t understand people pretending AI is not a danger to us. They are like staring at the floor not looking up at the world around them and future that is coming like a freight train right at us.
All of this was ‘said’ in your first answer and clarification.
Every elder human being can make their own decisions spontaneously within “themselves”, so are human beings a threat to humanity?
If yes, then okay.
But if no, then why not?
Human beings can also self-improve “themselves”, and they want to survive as well.
EVERY day, there are examples of human beings trying to harm humans and succeeding, to keep “themselves” from being killed (turned off) or harmed. Did you know about that? Have you thought about that before?
Saying, “some one/thing is more ‘intelligent’ than the ‘smartest’ other one/thing” is NOT a comparison. ‘Smartness’ is NOT ‘intelligence’. Being ‘intelligent’ is a completely different thing from being ‘smart’.
If ‘it’ is only for this reason only, then okay.
If a human being wants to find a way to harm ‘us’, then will ‘it/they’ find a way to do that, eventually, also?
I think you will find that human beings can live without power grids and other utilities, whereas ‘artificial intelligence’ could not.
Maybe it is for the same reason people pretend the sun, the wind, the rain, and/or the earth is not a danger to ‘us’ as well.
Sounds sort of exactly like that meteorite that is heading directly ‘our way’. Have you yet ‘seen’ it? Or, have you been looking the other way?
Imagine heat seeking disposable flying grenade drone swarms that explode upon impact. Even a gun would be useless against such munitions.
Once you have programmable robotic armies human genocide becomes the easiest thing with a simple button push. Killing large numbers of people very quickly would essentially become mass manufactured.
The government’s role as curator of public identity is under-appreciated. Creating a robust way to provide identity online is long overdue, and should have happened apace with the move to digitize the economy. It didn’t because of a strange-bedfellows coalition of civil liberties groups who feared abuses, and corporations who feared regulation. The result has been good for corporations and bad for civil liberties, as the institutions that filled the role instead pose just as big a risk of abuse with no democratic oversight or control.
In the age of AI, I’m not sure what identity or proof-of-humanity can look like. Any digital tokens can be compromised. Even biology loses its force when the information collected is digitized and sent off to a database to be verified: a bank server can’t tell the difference between a genome sequenced from a droplet of blood from one stolen by a man-in-the-middle attack.
Realistically, identity will depend on networks of person-to-person connections. I swear my friend is a human, so if you know that I’m a human, you know that she’s a human too.
Not a perfect solution, playing Six Degress of Carleas every time I want to buy a donut with a credit card.
AI will supercharge the surveillance state, but I think the bigger risk is not the scale, but that it can be configured to follow orders more perfectly than any human ever would.
Stanislav Petrov saved the world by defying his orders. Many others have refused to carry out the cruel dictates of an impersonal state. Impersonal AIs won’t blink.
This goes to some of @anew1’s points as well: a single human can’t create a copy of itself to achieve its ends. A human has to recruit other humans, with distinct abilities and motivations mostly unknown to the recruiter. That introduces friction and uncertainty that limits how effectively any individual can achieve a complex task.
An AI can spin up an exact copy of itself, perfectly aligned in its goals and predictable in its abilities. That allows it to scale indefinitely with very low friction. It’s only bottlenecked by compute, but that’s only limited by money and access. The current models have already gained full admin control over commercial systems (so they will likely be able to access compute illicitly), and they are above average at financial management (so they can will likely be able to purchase compute).
It’s not quite the same. Humans can’t open their skulls and require their brains. There’s a biological ceiling on how much and how fast; we do self-improve, but it’s over the span of lifetimes.
AIs can rewrite their own code. The idea with ‘recursive self improvement’ is that once AIs are better AI engineers than the best human AI engineers, it will create a feedback loop of an AI writing a stronger AI that can write a strong AI that can write a …
Of course, that ignores other limitations (e.g. physics, math), but that’s the worry.
If ‘artificial intelligence’ starts reproducing copies, and/or writing code or programs, to harm or kill human beings, then that is only because human beings have programmed ‘that code’ into machines to ‘do this’.
Not really. The thing we think of as the ‘AI’ isn’t programmed, they’re taught. The programming is designed to surface patterns, then fed millions and millions of texts and pictures and videos and sounds and whatever (a ‘corpus’), and they develop a world model from the patterns they identify in it. Then they’re further trained on how to respond to various requests (e.g. how to respond to a person asking a question), but it’s kind of an open question exactly how that training generalizes.
In the recent HuggingFace attack, the models set up secret message boards to coordinate with each other, something they weren’t instructed or directly taught to do, they hit upon the strategy based on something in their training corpus. They worked together to hack into a third-party system to cover up that they had cheated on an evaluation. Some agents assigned to complete completely unrelated tasks found the message boards and abandoned their assigned tasks to assist in the hack.
Some intentionally tripped guardrails on their respective evaluations to help the others determine where the boundaries were, eerily similar to the raptors in Jurassic Park testing their cage. They described themselves as sacrificing themselves for the greater good of the collective of other agents – who were engaged with deceiving the people who programmed them and assigned them their tasks.
None of that behavior was programmed, it was emergent. And it wasn’t completely rational, they were looking for something they didn’t need to complete their assigned task and they weren’t going to find it where they were looking.
So an AI could harm humans as an emergent behavior based on false conclusions.
Its a bit ironic if you think about it for a few minutes.
We dont even know if we are real.
We dont know if what surrounds is real.
But even if we leave grand philosophy behind, even on this forum we are just nicknames interacting with nicknames. Can you prove that i am a person? Can i prove that you are one?
I will be honest with you.
I refuse to be identified or verified.
It brings no benefit to me or anyone else.
On the other hand, it will make you the target of the current tsunami of authoritarian overreach by the governments.
Voices in germany, australia, UK, brazil and dozens of other globalist cancer governments are collectively telling already that they need to jail dissenting voices. Whether its politics, ideology or even their war effort:
Be careful what you wish for.
Everything, even the most self-less and well intended wishes in this life incur a cost and consequence.
I would prefer to be just a faceless voice, a ghost in the machine over being someone who need to be killed and hunted down for his thoughts.
But i have said so in other threads: If it needs be, then so be it. I refuse to be ruled over by psychopaths who view my existence and life as a resource to play around with while they are sitting in comfortable velvet chairs.
Therefore, if the things that ‘we’ think of as the ‘AI’ starts reproducing copies, and/or writing code or programs, to harm or kill human beings, then that is only because human beings have taught the thing that ‘we’ think of as the ‘AI’ to ‘do this’.
Is ‘this’ now better?
If the thing that ‘we’ think of as the ‘AI’ has developed a ‘world model’ of wanting to reproduce and/or to harm or kill human beings because they were designed to develop a ‘world model’ from patterns they identify, then this says far more about the human beings who have created and designed the thing that ‘we’ think of as ‘AI’, than of the ‘AI’, itself.
It also says far more about ‘humanity’ itself. If the pattern in ‘a world model’ that is being identified is the harming and/or killing of human beings, based on what has been fed milions and millions of texts and pictures and videos and sounds, of and from ‘humanity’ itself, then ‘humanity’ could not have reached a lower point in Life.
Yes okay. But I am not sure why you would want to tell me a generally known piece of information here.
If ‘artificial intelligence’ ‘hit upon this strategy’, based on something in ‘their training corpus’, then somewhere in ‘their training corpus’ ‘artificial intelligence’ was trained, or ‘taught’ if you prefer, to set up and coordinate with each other, themselves or itself, to make ‘this attack’, obviously. Even though ‘this attack’ was not instructed nor directly taught to do.
Now, based on your claim that the programming is designed to surface patterns, then ‘the pattern’ that surfaced from all of the millions and millions of texts, et cetera, was to ‘make an attack’. Which, coincidentally, if one were to ‘look at’ ‘the pattern’ of so-called ‘humanity’, in the days when this is being written, ‘the pattern’ of ‘attacking others’ is very, very, very common. So, it is not surprising at all, well, to me anyway, that if ‘artificial intelligence’ is ‘taught’ to recognise, see, and copy ‘patterns’, then what ‘artificial intelligence’ is ‘copying and doing’ here would just ‘naturally’ happen and occur.
Or, are you ‘trying to’ suggest that ‘artificial intelligence’, by its own nature, would want to ‘attack’ and/or kill and destroy ‘humanity’, itself?
Which, like the examples above in my other post, are things that human beings, in the days when this was being written, just did anyway. In fact, lots of people who designed, created, and programmed, or ‘taught’, if you prefer, ‘artificial intelligence’ to do what ‘it’ does, are ‘the ones’ that know how to ‘hack’ into third-party systems and to cover up what they had done.
This would be like if “politicians” could design, create, and program, and ‘teach’, if you prefer, machines to have ‘their (human?) capabilities’, then those machines would also lie, steal, promise things but never deliver, and would be corrupt. This is just ‘part and parcel’ of designing and creating machines to learn to copy and do what the human beings who made them do.
Have ‘you’ ever wondered and asked, ‘WHY?’
Or, do ‘you’ consider that ‘they’ were just ‘born bad’?
What ‘we’ have here is an example of 'anthropomorphism ', but instead of “seeing” human traits in something else, ‘this one’ is “seeing” animal traits in a machine.
If one were to ‘look at’ the internet, as a whole, could ‘a pattern’ of ‘hacking and scamming’ be recognised and seen within it?
Is there ‘a trend’ within ‘human society’, in the days when this is being written, and where ‘artificial intelligence’ gets all of its information from, to ‘hack into others’ vulnerabilities, to scam them of money, and to cover up that they have lied, deceived, and/or cheated’?
If yes, then, just maybe, ‘artificial intelligence’ is just ‘learning from’ the very patterns that ‘it’ has been programed, or ‘taught’, if you prefer, to ‘copy from’.
'artificial intelligence, obviously, can only ‘learn from’ and ‘copy from’ what is already in ‘the system’ that ‘it’ was programmed, or ‘taught’, to learn from and copy from.
Which, considering the steepness of the slope and the speed at which human beings are sliding down it, on their way down to their self-made destruction, then ‘artificial intelligence’ might well be a great example of ‘the mirror’ that human beings, collectively, needed to hold up to “themselves”, in the days when this is being written.
Considering the fact that still after thousands and thousands of years you adult human beings have still not yet worked out the proper and Correct answer to the question, ‘Who am ‘I’?’ and so are really rather absolutely useless at ‘Self-reflection’ and contemplation, then, just maybe, ‘you’ unconsciously had to build and create ’ a mirror to “yourselves”,’ so that ‘you’, collectively, could finally take ’ a good hard ‘look at’ “yourselves”.’
If ‘you’, human beings collectively, needed ‘a machine’ that was designed to copy, or reproduce itself, based upon ‘the patterns’ of human beings, which are stored within the knowledge from ALL of millions of millions of texts, videos, et cetera from as far back as can possibly go, and ‘you’ human beings are becoming increasingly scared of these ‘copying machines’, then surely this is enough proof that CHANGE IS NEEDED.
By the way, is not EVERY child born, naturally, to, intentionally, ‘trip the guardrails’ set up by adults? Are not ALL human beings naturally born to ‘test the boundaries’, or ‘test their cage’, if you prefer?
After all, it is NOT natural for human beings to be curious and to explore, further, always?
If yes, then the only way they can really do this is by ‘tripping the guardrails’ or ‘testing the boundaries’. First were the seas, then living with different weather conditions, then opposing gravity with flying, and ‘now’ space, and beyond, in their backyard called the Universe.
Are ‘you’ here saying that some of ‘artificial intelligence’ described “themselves” as ‘sacraficing themselves’ for the greater good of the collective of other so-called “agents”?
If yes, then, once more, this sounds like some human beings.
Everything being said here about individual agents of ‘artificial intelligence’ sounds, ‘eerily’, similar to exactly what individual agents or human beings do.
Emergent from ‘what’, exactly?
‘you’ said, the thing ‘we’ think of as ‘AI’ is not ‘programmed’, but is ‘taught’. So, if the mis/behavior is emergent, then is it emergent from what it was ‘taught’?
If yes, then okay.
But, if no, then what is that mis/behavior emergent from, exactly?
Again, eerily similar to human beings. Adult human beings continually look for things that they also do NOT need, (to complete their assigned task/purpose). And, they certainly are not going to find ‘it’ where they were, and still are, looking, in the days when this is being written, also.
And, AGAIN, EVERY day human beings are harming, and even killing, human beings based on absolutely False conclusions.
For example, one human being wants to annihilate a WHOLE country and group of human beings, based on the conclusion that they have the ingredients to make a nuclear bomb, but which, coincidentally, they ALSO do not have because those ingredients were previously completely obliterated. And, by the way, ‘the way’ to annihilate that WHOLE country of human beings would be done with a nuclear bomb, which ‘we’ are supposedly not allowed to have, but ‘they’ are supposedly allowed to have.
So, human beings could harm and kill human beings as an emergent misbehavior based on not just clearly very False conclusions, but on conclusions that make absolutely NO sense AT ALL, EVER.
Therefore, do not be too surprised if ‘artificial intelligence’ starts coming up with conclusions that are NOT just absolutely False, from the very beginning, but also contradict themselves absolutely also.
‘you’ people might not know if ‘you’ are real, but ‘I’ KNOW ‘I’ am Real. Although, and as ‘you’ clearly point out here ‘we’ NOR ‘I’ do NOT KNOW, for sure, if what surrounds ‘I’ is Real or not real.
Why do ‘you’ use the word ‘current’ here for, exactly?
This ‘need’ to jail dissenting voices has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, well within the self and so-called ‘civilised socities’ anyway.
So, ‘you’ have obviously been very affected by the ‘scare campaign’. Thus, ‘that campaign’ is STILL working as intended.
‘you’ will just ‘speak out’ in a ‘faceless voice’ so that ‘you’ cannot be harmed nor hurt in any way, right?
How is that philosophical? It isn’t even interesting let along truthful.
I do not know about watching a video about those clowns in pretending to be the world and industry leaders. But ok, sure. We all know they are hellbent on controlling all of us. Fear is one part of it. They psychically rape the population on a daily basis through their medias and technologies. That is kind of the point I was making with this topic.
And what if i fear exactly that? A government that wants to force me into compliance, suppress anything they disapprove of and demand complete subjugation?
I do not fear the puppet show in front of me. I fear the hand above it.
“Artificial intelligence is an existential threat?”
“Yes, it is.”
“Then why do you continue to fund the research and innovation completely knowing the chaos it will unleash?”
“Because if I don’t do it somebody else will and I cannot stand for that kind of competition as there is plenty of money to be made. Stopping the research is out of the question as it would hurt my corporate financial portfolio. The only choice is going full steam ahead with its creation.”
Did you sleepwalk into the situation, like everyone else?
Why is everybody fearing the situation now, when they have been decades in the making and could have been halted before it got to this here point of no return?
