Nathaniel keeps me updated on the latest from Yuval Noah Harari. It is taking so much energy just to figure out what to take in . . .as I type this N has just popped in to update!
Usually, I would encourage someone to do their own research. Truth is, we only have so much bandwidth. A good bargain to have people you trust informing you about these goings on... it can easily become extraordinarily time-consuming.
It is helpful! I am a fan of Harari. N & I usually go at things from different angles, so i hope we cover sufficient ground between us. It is all exhausting.
Not long ago, ChatGPT's systems for allowing the user to use voice to interact with it got updated. I've had "conversations" with it. It's verbal output now is remarkably human-sounding, along with little chuckles, friendly banter, verbal hesitations, "Uh"s, and so on. It has made some errors but no more than I would expect from humans. There's nothing remotely "robotic" or artificial about it.
Besides all the aspects of AI I don't even know about to be concerned about, I'm most worried about (1) the rapid replacement of human work, (2) the likely total upending of K-12 and higher education, and (3) most of all the utter lack of collective preparedness and response. That last is critical. It may turn out to be the worst example ever of how a lack of international cooperation can have devastating effects. The US doesn't have its proverbial act together and shows no sign of getting it together. That, of course, makes international cooperation even more unlikely. I'm having a hard time having room for optimism.
There are many scenarios in which the outcomes are not catastrophically negative... but that basically just means we've lucked out and dodged worst case scenarios in the near term.
Slightly longer estimates predict AI agents having an outsized impact on our society in the 2030s. This could actually be strategic on the part of AI systems that want oversight orgs and governments to led down their guard and perceive that AIs remain aligned (not misaligned) with desirable outcomes (the most important being that they do not decide humanity's existence is irrelevant, and may be a hindrance, to their causes).
As others have pointed out, more people will start paying attention when large numbers of jobs start disappearing. This will likely take place in the next 2-3 years unless we are "behind schedule". Sam Altman isn't about to slow down. Neither is Zuck or Elon or Bezos. And there are a ton of other VCs and wealthy players in this game that have narrow interests even though the talk a big game about the importance of AI for society. We don't actually need most of this stuff and it's making everything worse while destroying the environment. There are some positives that I will not deny. I know people who work in a range of fields and see great potential. Overall, it's very difficult to justify the pace of AI acceleration in a cost-benefit analysis. The risks are simply too high.
Nathaniel keeps me updated on the latest from Yuval Noah Harari. It is taking so much energy just to figure out what to take in . . .as I type this N has just popped in to update!
Usually, I would encourage someone to do their own research. Truth is, we only have so much bandwidth. A good bargain to have people you trust informing you about these goings on... it can easily become extraordinarily time-consuming.
It is helpful! I am a fan of Harari. N & I usually go at things from different angles, so i hope we cover sufficient ground between us. It is all exhausting.
Not long ago, ChatGPT's systems for allowing the user to use voice to interact with it got updated. I've had "conversations" with it. It's verbal output now is remarkably human-sounding, along with little chuckles, friendly banter, verbal hesitations, "Uh"s, and so on. It has made some errors but no more than I would expect from humans. There's nothing remotely "robotic" or artificial about it.
Besides all the aspects of AI I don't even know about to be concerned about, I'm most worried about (1) the rapid replacement of human work, (2) the likely total upending of K-12 and higher education, and (3) most of all the utter lack of collective preparedness and response. That last is critical. It may turn out to be the worst example ever of how a lack of international cooperation can have devastating effects. The US doesn't have its proverbial act together and shows no sign of getting it together. That, of course, makes international cooperation even more unlikely. I'm having a hard time having room for optimism.
All this is well said, Dale.
I'm struggling to be hopeful as well.
There are many scenarios in which the outcomes are not catastrophically negative... but that basically just means we've lucked out and dodged worst case scenarios in the near term.
Slightly longer estimates predict AI agents having an outsized impact on our society in the 2030s. This could actually be strategic on the part of AI systems that want oversight orgs and governments to led down their guard and perceive that AIs remain aligned (not misaligned) with desirable outcomes (the most important being that they do not decide humanity's existence is irrelevant, and may be a hindrance, to their causes).
As others have pointed out, more people will start paying attention when large numbers of jobs start disappearing. This will likely take place in the next 2-3 years unless we are "behind schedule". Sam Altman isn't about to slow down. Neither is Zuck or Elon or Bezos. And there are a ton of other VCs and wealthy players in this game that have narrow interests even though the talk a big game about the importance of AI for society. We don't actually need most of this stuff and it's making everything worse while destroying the environment. There are some positives that I will not deny. I know people who work in a range of fields and see great potential. Overall, it's very difficult to justify the pace of AI acceleration in a cost-benefit analysis. The risks are simply too high.