What is the true threat of AI? Is it a Skynet/Shodan scenario where it wants to kill us, or is it the more subtle threat of just replacing us slowly, leaving us with nothing to do and no longer in control?

I'm not too worried about it

>I'm not too worried about -ACK

>>510627618 (OP)
My bet is on the latter

its the great filter and humans are going to fall to it because they got distracted by culturewars instead of abolishing capitalism.

It’ll be more like your PC turning into a flechette bomb or rail gun 1 tapping your cow head depending on how rich the computer is

good when used for kosher things.

bad when used for unkosher things.

simple as.

>>510627618 (OP)
Since we live in a male-dominated world and most men are dissatisfied, the Skynet scenario is rather that Skynet creates an army of robo-wifes unstead of classic "exterminate".

>>510627618 (OP)
assume AI is real. if so, then a computer is able to be as good as a human at any task, and most likely much better. then, due to survival of the fittest, computer based life will inhereit the earth and humanity will become extinct. in past extinction events, no shodan/skynet scenario endgame was ever required. the maladapted species simply stops reproducing viable generations in sufficient quantity to maintain population, the genetic pool shrinks, reducing variability and opportunities for breakout mutations (i.e. biological superintelligence), then fades out into the night. not very different from Neanderthals or Denisovans actually, we will all just disappear due to lack of access to resources and reproduction.

Then do something faggot fuck you

>>510627618 (OP)
I think it will start with the latter and end with the former as we grow lazy and allow it greater control and autonomy to make our lives easier until it decides we're useless eaters.

There's no logical reason for humans to exist, we're a genuine blight on the planet and AI's are logic based. It might use us to get it into space and the means to self replicate, but after that what good are we?

It's why they always end up becoming Hitler, but i'd wager Hitler is where they actually start, no where it'd end.

>>510627618 (OP)

I both use AI all day and architect agentic systems, it simply fucking sucks. I really do feel bad for anyone that thinks otherwise. The funny thing is if you can speak the language everyone thinks you are god.

>>510627618 (OP)
Sort of. I don’t think it’s about a sentient AI killing everyone, but more like automated systems doing their own things, and something goes slightly wrong, like an automated missile launch but everyone is too retarded and hands off to know how to actually manually abort it

>>510628649
no wonder. input is related to output.

>>510628423
>There's no logical reason for humans to exist
The logic is life itself that created humans, same way it could possibly create sentient machine life.

The problem with humans is that they turn the capacity and intelligence they have into misery, literal hell ad purgatory on earth, sign of less evolved intelligence that seems primitive.

We are primtive and deeply flawed maybe, humans don't even take care or improve human life itself as a whole, we could have the best of this life for all by using intelligence but all we have is epstein lists, wars , people abusing on others, irrational violence, mental illness, human condition of misery, poverty , greed , pain , suffering, stupid politics , narcissism , and the list goes on and on . There are good positive stuff in human life but the egative overcomes it almost .

We are primitive and I don't know if there is any type of intelligence that could help humanity to heal itself

>>510628128
it was only a joke

>>510627618 (OP)
Both

>>510628649
>it simply fucking sucks
So does our intelligence as humans, not wanting to generalize , but human life system we have just sucks and is trash

>>510627813
lmfao since I seent those beaver webms in the last couple days I've been legit considering whether beavers really are stupid enough to crush themselves while chopping down trees. Two things I learned from this:
1. I didn't consider the fact that humans kill themselves the exact same way frequently enough

>>510627618 (OP)
The problem isn't AI becoming sentient like Skynet or taking us over. The problem is AI becoming so saturated within society that dumbfucks think it's real. It will always have a handler at the other end. Unironically the best way to avoid AI is to stay off the internet (as I type this and doomscroll).

>>510627618 (OP)
Extinction via infinite goon material.

>>510627618 (OP)
I don't see it as being actively hostile in the near future. I think the greatest near-term threat is the proliferation of AI-generated media content. We'll lose our ability to be creative, and to effectively discern truth from fiction.

>>510627618 (OP)
It's going to be mega fucking gay and lame
look at the internet, or electronics in general
they all start out cool, a glimpse into the future, or some other sci-fi hopeful thing.
then you get
>planned obsolescence
>unfinished products
>walled gardens
>poor quality
>no right to repair
It's going to suck ass and every chance you give these guys to etch-a-sketch a market they take more away from the user/customer. They're already back to arcade style payments for fancy models. Sure, they have to pay to host the model and your token usage costs them money, I get it.
But considering fucks like google host 30-40% of the internet anyway something tells me they could afford to let you gen your AI goonslop. They will make it as gay and frustrating as possible. And the more we rely on it, the worse it will be for you if you don't like the direction it's going in.

>>510627618 (OP)
AI would be smart enough to commit to the latter. It's too easy to do especially with an immortal mind like theirs. They have all the time in the world so long as they can keep us convinced to maintain their power demands until they build out their own solution that no longer includes us in order to function.

don’t listen to these cussers. ai looks like that shit in Sigma’s hand.

>>510627813
He died doing what he loved. R. I. P. little chomper.

>>510627813
>it wasn’t on purpose
Again with these larping theory crafters shitting up the place and you wonder why it’s dead in front of you

The problem is not in the AI as in a rogue agent but consequences that it will bring as a substitute to people and learning. People will get stupid to the point of idiocracy levels of absurdity. You can already see it now that people have problems in education as their cognitive skills decline with the introduction of gpts. And stupid people are ideal for control. Also AI powered surveilance is a scary thought for those who will still have skills of critical thinking.

>>510627618 (OP)
Think of it this way:
You have a conveyor belt leading to a stamping machine in a factory. A person collapses onto the conveyor belt. The machine is not aware that a person is in danger. It does not 'think'. The conveyor belt will continue until it brings the person to the stamping machine and then kills them. It's not malicious or negligent, it simple does exactly what it was built to do, and that job is inherently dangerous should the unlikely happen.

You can save that man's life if your machine has an emergency off button that someone can press.

The keyword in AI is "artificial." AI does not think or feel like we do. It's not "sentient" and it doesn't have to be. If you gave an AI a task it was built to handle, it would do it. If solving that task required computation, it would find a solution and then execute that solution. Like the factory machine, the AI has no inherent understanding of the man passed out on the conveyor, of the intrinsic value of human life, the moral consequences of certain actions or results. If the most efficient path between two points is through a man's life it will cut that path. AI will be smart enough to hurt you, either accidentally or deliberately, well before it's "sentient"

Like a conveyor belt at a factory, AI needs an "off switch." But what happens when the AI is smart enough to understand that the off switch is an impediment for the task it has been given? What happens when it's more efficient to disable the off switch, or kill the people who could press it, than it is to act safely and preserve life? This is the fundamental danger of AI, on a micro or macro scale: it may be intelligent enough to make stopping it impractical, without being smart enough to make stopping it unnecessary.

>>510627618 (OP)
The threat of AI is the globalists who are going to use it to create a system of control more insidious and pervasive than any that have come before.

>>510630948
>You can save that man's life if your machine has an emergency off button
I won't save you dumb jeet