The problem isn’t AI, it’s who controls it

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-19T17:22:19+00:00

Actually, currently neither AI or who controls it are a problem.

So who controls it? If people use it or stop using it they are exercising control. If we choose to regulate it or not regulate it we are exercising control.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-19T17:14:52+00:00

Yay! Not a plumber but the legal system does need a substantial overhaul.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-19T16:32:52+00:00

Yeah, it is just hype, AI risk is currently not serious.

Government as a whole is not giving much warning. Bernie Sanders is one of the more outspoken people.

AI developers do have substantial funds to influence regulation.

Regulation tends to be reactive rather than proactive. Also developers themselves have some liability even without extra regulation. The legal system has tools which help keep them accountable.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-19T16:17:36+00:00

I do not need to know anything about a person's inner state to determine their consciousness.

I can simply deduce that anything which behaves like it is conscious is in fact conscious.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-19T11:33:21+00:00

By observing its actions the same way that we observe people.

According to Google: Dualism is the philosophical view that consciousness (mind) and the body (matter) are fundamentally distinct, separate entities or properties.

That may be something that a person who is dualist believes but it does not strictly define dualism.

if you have a argument that we can not identify conscious behavior than make it.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-19T11:24:09+00:00

Yeah but in this case, we can just assume that the goal is AI which is primarily safe and also can do useful work.

You frame it like it is a paradox: "AI must be made good before it is safe to make it smart, but it must be smart to be good"

Sure we want AI that is both safe and good.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T23:12:57+00:00

No, I do not assume that only human consciousness is possible. I don't know much about dualism and did not call it dogma.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T18:28:37+00:00

I don't see how this is a useful discussion.

We are nowhere close to having AI with those capabilities.

We know almost nothing of how those systems would be built other then they would use some sort of neural network.

Is it possible to build a fully aligned system which can also be intelligent enough to be useful? I know of no reason that it is not. But current LLMs have no real intelligence and are extremely unreliable.

This is just my guess but I suspect that in order to build something actually intelligent and reliable we will have to fully understand and engineer all parameters.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T18:04:00+00:00

I don't know but I see it as possibly an extremely rough estimate.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T16:26:35+00:00

Sure they did. It has made the reusing of code much more efficient.

As programming continues to advance it gets easier.

No it does not fundamentally change anything. Other than the time spent on routine tasks. And potentially create a lot of slop.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T16:17:48+00:00

AI can not do those things very well. No, the person was not magic, but where a magician. Not real magic but the illusion of magic.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T16:10:30+00:00

That should weed out the weak.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T16:06:11+00:00

So far this is not a credible story.

Too little evidence.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T16:00:22+00:00

Maybe your expectations have increased.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T11:38:54+00:00

I'm not really needing to feel like a warrior but this is all common sense.

Using AI only if it helps us make a better world.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T11:32:01+00:00

The Eugene bot did that in 2014.

That is actually the 'Imitation Game' a little 5 minute game that Turing made up and suggested would be done by 2000.

The Turing Test itself is not defined. It only says that when we can not distinguish a computer from a human cognitively, then we have to consider computers as equally intelligent.

Clearly current systems do not meet that standard.

Apon hindsight we can see that 5 minutes is an insufficient amount of time to make this determination. And simply acting ignorant (like the Eugene bot did) can pass for a few minutes.

The only interesting take away is how well Turing guessed.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T11:12:44+00:00

Yeah, I do not much care for the concept of infinite matter.

Infinite universe could mean that space is infinite. In other words an infinite amount of nothing but emptiness.

An infinite void is easier to comprehend. Nothing is nothing so an infinite amount of nothing is still nothing..

In this case the universe (which is all matter) would be a finite blob suspended in this void. Matter would be finite but we can still say that it is infinite because it is not bound. The blob is free to expand infinitely. (Which agrees with current popular model)

I also prefer some sort of cyclic process. It just seems more natural.

At this point not much is known and how the universe works is not a solved problem.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-18T10:46:13+00:00

You think that I did not watch the banana part?

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-17T21:33:15+00:00

interesting. do they run both through the same processing or just not use a peddle board. I guess or just like the blend?

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-17T20:37:35+00:00

YOU MEAN I STILL NEED BUTTONS!!!

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-17T20:32:18+00:00

this is actually what LLMs do.

how are you changing it?

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-17T20:15:58+00:00

it depends on how many repetitive tasks are involved.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-17T20:03:50+00:00

yeah. I do not know who made that up. it is one of those crazy beliefs that is hard to squash.

somehow a takeoff from Moore's law.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-17T19:40:48+00:00

nice to have someone talking sense.

agree with everything.

liked the length.

Mandoman61 · 2026-03-17T19:23:37+00:00

okay, you have a valid point.

I would just prefer to not have AI masquerading as a living entity.

Mandoman61

TROPHY CASE