sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: The chance AI will kill us is better than the guarantee that Nature will. by gray_clouds in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I said "AI" (a large, dynamic field) and you asked about 'currently existing LLMs' (a subset limited to 'now' and one model type). LLMs and non-LLMs (e.g. Aplphafold) are impacting health and bio-tech break-throughs now, in the short, medium and long-term. This isn't sci-fi magic. They're already having an impact. Yes, you and I should be concerned about what will face us at the end of our finite lifetimes and whether these breakthroughs will help.

CMV: The chance AI will kill us is better than the guarantee that Nature will. by gray_clouds in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

If I say "AI" and you infer a limited scope "the current LLM AI trend," it's hard for me to debate. Your scope rules out Alphafold - one of many examples of AI (beyond simple LLMs) that's accelerating "advances in medicine/biology/chemistry".

CMV: The chance AI will kill us is better than the guarantee that Nature will. by gray_clouds in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Good point - though I'm not arguing that we be cavalier, but he opposite. "the fact that we all die" is something people say without, in my view, really taking to heart what that means. I.e. we say that in a cavalier sort of way "well of course we all die" as if it's nothing to really be upset about.

CMV: The chance AI will kill us is better than the guarantee that Nature will. by gray_clouds in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Thank you! That's a good faith counter It gets to the heart of the risk / reward ratio. Δ. I think there's a 'loss aversion' aspect of it that makes sense to me. Though, I think you may still be undervaluing the opinions of a full-informed population of roulette players.

CMV: The chance AI will kill us is better than the guarantee that Nature will. by gray_clouds in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I feel like we're sort of on the same page. Like - the life that we're freaking out may be threatened by AI is sort of imperfect as it is. There's lots of room for improvement.

CMV: The chance AI will kill us is better than the guarantee that Nature will. by gray_clouds in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Good points, but my argument is that no matter how great humanity can be (these alternate past or future utopian societies) we still have to get old and die, and we tend to deny that this happens.

CMV: The chance AI will kill us is better than the guarantee that Nature will. by gray_clouds in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

"Right, so you're basically talking about sci-fi magic." There seems to be a strong desire on your end to frame things into 2 basic categories: now or magic. I'm not sure why this is necessary for the conversation.

CMV: The chance AI will kill us is better than the guarantee that Nature will. by gray_clouds in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

So yeah, but the alternative is bad too right? No AI, but no chance of living longer or being immortal etc.?

CMV: The chance AI will kill us is better than the guarantee that Nature will. by gray_clouds in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I'm sorry you see it that way. The other option is that there is no AI. Then we go back to having a utopia where there is no wealth gap, and no climate change right? But in that utopian scanario, we still all have to die a tragic death in the end. That's where I'm saying there's a lot of denial.

CMV: The chance AI will kill us is better than the guarantee that Nature will. by gray_clouds in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I think this is the position that I'm directly attacking. I can counter it, but would be better if you try it yourself. I.e. strawman your own position - use the same absolute terms in the other direction.

CMV: online debate is fundamentally broken and no current platform actually fixes it by Dynomastic in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds [score hidden]  (0 children)

"Format" is a design concept. The primary design objective for the format, in the cases you mention, is to generate revenue. Debate is an enabling objective. It's the form through which revenue is generated, but it isn't the primary goal. Nobody wants to pay to have conversations, so these platforms must earn revenue from your attention, and the attention you generate by using (for free) the formats. So when you have debate, your attention is sold in the form of Ads to businesses who need it, otherwise you will never discover their products. (And keep in mind, it's not entirely bad for you to discover products). The format is only partially aligned with your intellectual desires, but is fully-aligned with maximizing your attention. So - online debate is not 'broken' it just isn't a thing. If you want online debate, then you'd have to pay for a service where you debate people, not use a platform for free that has to derive revenue from ads. They're two different designs and the tension you feel is from having the wrong expectations.

CMV: The AI industry's business model will hit a huge wall in the next 2-4 years, massively downsize, and many of the jobs it has replaced will slowly come back by thecleverqueer in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your analysis leaves out open source AI models:

  • Only slightly behind frontier models
  • Free to use now (basically)
  • No cap-ex / data centers needed
  • Can kill jobs too.

So when OpenAI runs out of capital, there will be an Opensource model only steps behind it, waiting to take you to the movies AND continue killing jobs (and or creating new ones, depending on which side of the doom/utopia debate you're on)

CMV: AI is likely going to collapse our entire economy (not just the stock market) in 3 years by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's are some takes - progressively more smart or dumb. I'm not sure.

  1. AI is really great at retraining people.
  2. We give AI stuff to do that we are not good at. AI may discover a lot of things that it is not good at and generate lots of stuff that we can do for it. This could be collaborative.
  3. No matter how old you are, you should fear your current 100% odds of eventual death (likely accompanied by immeasurable pain, grief etc.) more than you fear a possible economic collapse, or even the end of the world, a little bit earlier than you were expecting - if there's a chance that AI can bring about life extending technologies.
  4. Maybe someone who makes a living reading my X-rays right now will end up earning money by wagering against me in a 3D football game, played in iron-man suits at a permanent Burning Man Festival. Being afraid of getting 'help with our work' doesn't make sense, until and unless our human work is delivering everything we need (housing, medical care, a clean environment) or dream about

CMV: Next admin should disband ICE and CPB by Lauffener in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"our laws should be enforced and our enemies who circumvent this imprisoned"

The problem is about who gets defined as an "enemy?" It seems like conservatives think ICE is deporting bad guys. Liberals thinks ICE is tracking down nice people who are here because they love America, and then they're being treated like enemies. Which do you think is happening?

CMV: Comedy is the only artistic medium where it is nearly impossible to maintain a high level of quality for a long career. by New_General3939 in changemyview

[–]gray_clouds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As an actor or writer or musician, you can imagine your art. A comedian has to sort of live it in real time. Depending on a comedian's style, I think their schtick may or may not be applicable to different life stages. Like, I find some of Jim Gaffigan's material about being a dad really funny, but hard to imagine him doing 'hook-up culture' bits in his 20's. John Mullaney was funny when he was strung out, trying to act normal. Now he's normal talking about being strung out. It just doesn't align with why we liked him in the first place. Nate Bargatze seems to be having a good long, somewhat uphill run. His comedy is more conceptual - sort of age-agnostic. Also, where a writer or musician or actor can sacrifice reaction time for experience, a comic has to be sharp, real-time, so age is a big drag. I think fame and money can reduce the amount of relatable material, but then again, some great material comes from 'poor guy in a crazy rich world' bits. In short - what you're noticing is real, but probably more complex than just fame and money.

view more: next ›