I've got here late but still want to reply to the OP...

I’ve always been sort of a skeptic when it comes to new tech most my because given human history we aren’t exactly good at using it to our betterment (looking at social media and the Industrial Revolution). — Darkneos

The vast majority of tech is a net benefit; it's just humans figuring out ways to do things.

Firstly bear in mind that everything we construct is tech....we tend to use tech as shorthand for things in the digital space from the last few decades, but speaking more fundamentally about tech, as you are, then the clothes you are wearing are technology, as is the building you're probably sitting in. Not merely the device that you're reading this on.

Secondly I'd dispute even your examples. The industrial revolution brought a lot of benefits, and although there was huge inequality, and a lot of pollution, in most cases the inequality was less than the agrarian society it displaced, and we have ameliorated a lot of the pollution. And it utterly transformed our quality of life.

Not to say there aren't still big problems, like climate change, but hands down it's been a net benefit to humans.

It seems that, like social media, AI is catering to our worst and basest impulses for immediate rewards and nothing thinking about the long term. — Darkneos

I would disagree with that. e.g. LLMs and the like are being used in most cases to create things and get advice. I don't see this as base impulses.

What’s gonna happen when you replace most jobs with AI, how will people live? — Darkneos

It's not a given that unemployment will increase. Technology tends to displace jobs and replace them with something else, hence why US unemployment has bounced around the same average for decades even as we've been in the information age.

In any case, jobs exist to fulfill human needs. If there are no jobs, that implies a post-scarcity environment. If we're saying only the rich can afford robots or whatever, then there are still jobs for human maids. You can't have tech that both no-one can afford and yet be maximally disruptive.

(Well, I don't actually think it's that simple, I am expecting a lot of social unrest and probably the unemployment rate will increase. Countries with a weak welfare safety net are going to suffer a lot. I am just trying to push back against the assumption of the OP)

So far AI just seems to benefit the wealthiest among us and not the Everyman — Darkneos

I use AI every day and I doubt I'd be the wealthiest guy in a soup kitchen.

in most cases the inequality was less than the agrarian society — Mijin

can you point to examples of this?

I think there are inherent problems with trying to measure economic inequality. Not that modern life is better or worse than agrarian times, but you could probably argue that the current day has the most inequality than any other point in history if you consider the massive wealth of certain people.

but you could probably argue that the current day has the most inequality than any other point in history if you consider the massive wealth of certain people. — ProtagoranSocratist

Is there more inequality now than in the past when 1850s children (for example) didn't have the chance to study because this was reserved for only the wealthiest? I honestly think that the world, with nuances, has progressed enough in most of the countries. However, I would not consider AI as progress; that is what seems to argue.

Is there more inequality now than in the past when 1850s children (for example) didn't have the chance to study because this was reserved for only the wealthiest? — javi2541997

i don't know, that's why i was asking Mijin: there are still a lot of people who are not literate and cannot study. I would think inequality would just be about people with the least amount of wealth vs. the people with the most wealth, and the gap between them. I was just arguing that the gap between people like mark zuckerburg and jeff bezos vs. a modern person with next to nothing is unprecedented because in the past, not even kings could have nearly that much wealth.

On inequality: sorry, it seems I was wrong. The world got much wealthier in the industrial revolution, and so the typical subsistence farmer moving to the city was better off. But the owners of capital were tremendously better off. So inequality actually increased.

On AI progress; as I say @javi2541997, I use AI daily to help me with work and personal tasks, as do my friends. Why don't you think it counts as progress?

On AI progress; as I say javi2541997, I use AI daily to help me with work and personal tasks, as do my friends. Why don't you think it counts as progress? — Mijin

Well, if you use it as a tool, I think it will not be a real issue after all. I am sceptical towards AI because it surpassed the ability to think and create of some people, and I think it is a bit dangerous. For example, I am a non-native English speaker, and I like to check my grammar on QuillBot because it helps me to learn, and it is fun how this bot works. Nonetheless, I remember using ChatGPTto proofread my grammar once, and it totally changed the sense and meaning of my text without asking for it. I have never asked for help in English since then.

Therefore, based on what I experienced using ChatGPT, I believe that some works that depend on human creativity and effort may be at risk. It would be nice if it helped me to find some inspiration. For example, if I say, 'Hey, AI, give me some advice on children's literature because I want to write a book.' Such an arrangement would be acceptable. It just helps me. But I see it wrong if I ask the AI to write a children's literature book by itself, with me being the one who writes the prompts.

It has been used in the wrong way!! The solution: We write, and it helps us with prompts.

I notice a lot of people here are on the same page, I also need to keep myself from praising AI up into the clouds, we all know AI is more than mere language models and can transform fields, you never knew AI would be useful in.
We use averages and mathematics to solve many things already, but where there is a floating parameter IE the intake of a car, our older models mostly break down unless we introduce far too many complicated sensors to fine tune the mixture.
An AI for example could use one sensor (temperature) to make far more educated guesses that no ordinary human can model and you end up with a more efficient engine as a result.
Our world has models everywhere, models for heating in buildings, lighting, weather, etc. etc.
AI is a gift that will save countless lives, it is likely saving lives as you read this.

But philosophy isn't just about praise, it is also about the negatives.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who find it difficult to search for music or videos anymore, and I won't be surprised if the "search field" becomes something antiquated.
The fun we have with LLM's now is not something that will stick around forever, I see it in the same way I see the search field, something that was completely integral to a websites function, becoming old as people simply, 'don't know what to search for', we use LLM's now to ask questions we won't need to be asking in a few years time, maybe.
I don't know for certain, but It's an educated guess.
In the absence of choice, making a wish for a song or a film becomes easy, when your choices are infinite, making up your decision becomes much harder.
I don't know if this phenomena has a name already, but I wonder if it could apply to AI LLM's with potentially a much worse effect.
I don't see myself ever stop asking questions, but then again, I was never able see myself stop searching for videos either.

We don't need AI to help us accomplish our downfall.

Had anyone mentioned this?…

I was pretty dismissive before. But this demonstrates the dangers of the Tech Bros “move fast and break things” approach to AI.

But I see it wrong if I ask the AI to write a children's literature book by itself, with me being the one who writes the prompts. — javi2541997

Why is that wrong?

In the absence of choice, making a wish for a song or a film becomes easy, when your choices are infinite, making up your decision becomes much harder.
I don't know if this phenomena has a name already, — Bivar

No special name except it's " choice overload". But the psychologist Barry Schwartz wrote about the paradox of choice. There is the danger of paralysis in the decisions we make when there are so many competing alternatives.

We see that it's been happening for some time now. We just go by what the algorithm tells us to watch, listen, and read. So, we're stuck with a narrow view without us knowing or minding it. In the name of comfort, we are happy for an AI to serve us what we watch, listen, and read without us protesting about it.

Why is that wrong? — RogueAI

Because it is gradually degenerating our power to imagine and create.

Harari outlines a different set of problem here. We probably shouldn't be using AI. If we do, we may well become unwitting perpetrators of what may be the greatest threat humanity has ever faced. I never have and never will use them for research or for polishing what I write. Don't feed the Beast!

Because it is gradually degenerating our power to imagine and create. — javi2541997

But I'm not a children's book creator, nor do I want to be, nor do I have any talent at it. What's the difference between buying a book at Amazon vs buying it at a bookstore, vs having ChatGPT make me one?

What's the difference between buying a book at Amazon vs buying it at a bookstore, vs having ChatGPT make me one? — RogueAI

I think there are important differences.

First, a book is a very personal art creation. Every chapter has details and sparks of the author's identity. This is what makes some books more iconic and worth remembering than others. A book written by an AI lacks the author's unique identity, and if you feel any emotional connection, it is merely the AI replicating ideas from various sources.

On the other hand, we should never leave the power of our imagination behind. Try to write a book, poem or haiku by yourself. It is a satisfactory pleasure. It is not necessary to be a professional to write your ideas and imagination on paper. However, if we let the AI do that for ourselves, we will gradually lose the magic of creation. Although we already live in a mediocre time regarding art, AI would be the last nail of our coffin. But it is not too late—we can stop it and believe in ourselves again.

Lastly, everything seems innocent now. It is just an advanced AI recollecting information from here and there with a lot of accuracy. Yet we should not trust too much in it. We let them write books, laws, and constitutions, and in the end, we will be ruled by them. Perhaps what I say sounds like a dystopia. But it sounds more real than ever...

Why is that wrong?
— RogueAI

Because it is gradually degenerating our power to imagine and create. — javi2541997

And more: the use of AI is discouraging people from developing personal mastery, personal artistry. It used to be normal for people to do hard things, and this was important both evolutionarily as well as on the level of the individual person. Personal mastery was valued.

Nowadays, there is an increased focus on the finished result, without much regard for how it has come about. This has so many negative consequences.

Right now, there is a massive rescue operation taking place on Mt. Everest because a large number of people apparently just wanted to check off "climb Mt. Everest" from their bucket list. That's what happens when people don't value personal mastery. Except that when humanity as a whole fucks up, there will be noone coming to save us.

Nowadays, there is an increased focus on the finished result, without much regard for how it has come about. This has so many negative consequences. — baker

Yep, exactly. :up: :up:

On AI progress; as I say javi2541997, I use AI daily to help me with work and personal tasks, as do my friends. Why don't you think it counts as progress? — Mijin

Studies have found that people who use AI have lower cognitive ability than people who don't, you're making yourself worse off for using it.

Studies have found that people who use AI have lower cognitive ability than people who don't, you're making yourself worse off for using it. — Darkneos

Well, the first part may be true, but that was probably a personal issue that would have been measured the same, regardless of whether AI ever existed or not. :smirk:

Still, you may be right. If you don't "use it", you "lose it", or so the saying goes.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/10-physical-human-traits-that-evolution-has-made-obsolete.htm

:up: :up:

However, some people won't recognize this because the tentacles of AI have already trapped them.

Studies have found that people who use AI have lower cognitive ability than people who don't, you're making yourself worse off for using it. — Darkneos

Which studies?

I think what it comes down to is that it depends on how it's used. This is where it gets interesting.

I think what it comes down to is that it depends on how it's used. This is where it gets interesting. — Jamal

Nope, across the board people do end up stupider for using it. Not every technology comes down to how it's used.

However, some people won't recognize this because the tentacles of AI have already trapped them. — javi2541997

Oh I know, it's already happening. AI is already a problem in schools and students are actively getting worse in critical thinking because of it.

Pretty sure there is a Dune quote that captures what's going on.

Nope, across the board people do end up stupider for using it. — Darkneos

I already understood that you believed so. I told you that I disagreed, and you just re-iterated your belief. This is not how discussion works.

Which. Studies.

Studies have found that people who use AI have lower cognitive ability than people who don't, you're making yourself worse off for using it. — Darkneos

I'd like to see those studies; I would be very skeptical of a causal link. Especially for such a broad term like "cognitive ability".

As with any technology, AI can be used to benefit people or to harm them. From my perspective, the biggest dangers from AI are the abilities to create new ways of killing people.

I consider it likely that scientists all across the world (either with direct or tacit support of their governments) are engaged in research to create new and more deadly bio-weapons of mass destruction. North Korea, China, Israel, Russia, etc.

At the risk of being a fear monger, AI itself will not destroy humanity. Humanity will use AI to self-destruct.

It would make me very happy to be wrong about this.

Although we already live in a mediocre time regarding art, AI would be the last nail of our coffin. But it is not too late—we can stop it and believe in ourselves again. — javi2541997

I agree with what you write there except for the above. I don't think we live in a "mediocre time" regarding art, and I do believe it is probably too late to stop the AI juggernaut. As I said above I refuse to use AI for either research or writing. It is only a juggernaut because people will not refrain from using it; the temptation for people to save time and/or make themselves look better and smarter is too great. I don't think they appreciate the possible dangers, which are far greater than devaluing human creativity.

From my perspective, the biggest dangers from AI are the abilities to create new ways of killing people. — EricH

This is just one of the very serious possibilities. A layman biochemist with AI help might be able to create a lethal new virus for example. It is not a matter of fearmongering—we should all be very afraid. The solution is simple—stop using AI, and the financial incentive to develop it will evaporate. The military incentive will unfortunately remain. I hold little hope that people will wake up and stop using it anyway.

I think what it comes down to is that it depends on how it's used. This is where it gets interesting. — Jamal

Nope. It just shouldn't be used because it is evolving much faster than our ability to understand it and predict where its evolution will lead. For the first time we are confronted with how to deal with an intelligence far greater than our own. I don't think it's going to end well.

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God – but to [build it]. — Arthur C. Clarke

Like chatbox 'romance', another omen of our impending "AI downfall" –

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20251016-people-are-using-ai-to-talk-to-god :sweat:

@Jack Cummins @Wayfarer

Darkneos, your question has been asked countless times over the years.

"Will the calculator make people dumber?" "You can replace 10 accountants with with calculator. If people don't need to add and subtract by pencil anymore, do we need people learning math at all?"

"Will farming machinery ruin the agriculture sector? What will people do for jobs?"

"Phones are the dumbing of America. Did you know people don't even memorize phone numbers anymore? They're ruining their ability to memorize."

Same questions, different era. The answer is always the same. Technology almost always improves the capabilities of humanity and quality of life. Now is there a period of training readjustment? Yes. Is there a period of finding out the negative aspects of the tool as well as the positive? Yes. Is there always fear? Yes.

But take heart, these questions have repeated for centuries over humanities lifetime. We always adapt, we always grow stronger, and its always a better world for having new technology.

But take heart, these questions have repeated for centuries over humanities lifetime. We always adapt, we always grow stronger, and its always a better world for having new technology. — Philosophim

Something like that.

And we should already know from history that technological advances always come with over exaggerated promises and hype with speculative bubbles with investors pouring money to companies that in the end only few actually make it out after the bubble has burst alive and then share the global market. And become boring corporations.

As the Trumpbust is strongly coming (even if Trump fires his chief statistician because of a bad job report), the AI bubble will sooner or later burst and we'll have an economic depression. But after that AI will be used just as we use the internet. The net didn't prove to be our downfall and neither will be AI.

Actually thanks to AI, students will be writing on paper their exams under the watchful eye of a teach especially in the future. :)

Our downfall will be a lack of energy (fossil fuels), which will bring our civilization to a grinding halt rapidly. Not instantenously obviously, but it is the key, critical point that impacts everything we do in our world. You don't need to be a visionary to see what will happen when the energy runs out.

All the other problems we face - overpopulation, climate change, political unrest, income & wealth inequality, AI making people dumber - are, ultimately, secondary or tertiary, despite their seriousness and urgency. We could (and should) immediately stop using AI, tear down all the data centers, and downscale our use of, and reliance on, technology in general, but who is going to do it? The powers that run the world certaintly wont voluntarily cut their power or profit, and neither will the domesticated masses. The only thing you can do is not use it, and recommend others to do the same.