Comment by vouaobrasil | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vouaobrasil | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I absolutely agree with the conclusion of this website: that AI will be net harmful. Whether AI can ever become truly intelligent is totally irrelevant except to philosophers. What matters is what it can do, and how it will change society.

The one aspect of this website that I vehemently disagree with is that we should pursue rapid technological and scientific development, even without AI.

Instead, I believe that AI is harmful and should be totally destroyed, but also that technological and scientific development has also reached a point where it TOO needs to be regulated, because a large part of the reason AI even exists is because of unfettered technological development.

Of course, there is some science that is good like understanding more about our NATURAL world so we can save it, but a lot of it is either totally useless or also net harmful (and I say this as a former researcher in the sciences with more than a decade of experience). For example, research into advanced computer systems makes AI easier to develop.

Thus, it is not just AI that needs to be shut down and destroyed, but all of technological development needs to be regulated as well.

It is simply apalling that anyone would contribute even one line of code to AI.

Just don’t move to a cabin in the woods of Montana and start mailing out letter bombs…

Facetious references like this to Ted Kaczynski typically come out, but one can be against extremely advanced technology without hurting anyone. I would rather have a rational discussion about technology. We already have rational discussions about harmful toxins in our environment, even though toxins might have some use in small quantities for the purposes of chemistry.

Society universally treats technology as a shiny new toy that should be glorified but we need to slowly come to the realization that in its collective mass, it is dangerous. (And we are already seeing the effects of that, because our immense power has allowed us to decimate huge portions of the natural world that we depend upon.)

This isn't a new or very unique take. I feel like the idea of regulating technology has been around basically since Michael Crichton wrote an allegory of the danger of "unfettered technological advancement" in his book Jurassic Park in 1990.

I am not concerned with developing anything new, just with raising awareness. In fact, I don't care at all if any of my ideas are new. I have read most of Michael Crichton's books and I have enjoyed his perspective.

The more people that raise awareness of the dangers of AI and other advanced technology, the better.

I can’t decide if I’m tickled or horrified that Jurassic Park is being offered as a seminal work in techno-skepticism.

It’s reading a bit like somebody saying that Coldplay really established rock as a music genre.

Thank you for making my evening!

Who would have thought that a discussion on wildly speculative science-fiction would lead to a discussion on wildly speculative science-fiction?

Got any better solutions to address the issues presented by Teddy other than mail bombs?

I fully agree. It's just like that comic with the Wall Street shill in the cave, only a techbro instead.

"Yes, deepfakes got so prevalent that we launched our full nuclear arsenal over one. But at least ChatGPT was fun!"

I upvoted your comment because I think it's a fascinating perspective and worthy of discussion, even though I strongly disagree with you.

One of the hallmarks of humanity is that we innovate and adapt. Shutting down / destroying that innovation is a brute force approach that has failed time and time and time and time again in our history. If you ban or destroy technology, it just means someone will do the same thing in private. Even something universally "awful" like nuclear weapons which I think we can all agree should not be used still contributed to our collective knowledge and technological innovations.

So yes, there will be "bad" AI and AI will be used for bad things. But we'll innovate and develop countermeasures, and along the way I'm certain good things will come of it.

Like I said, I don't mean that we should shut down ALL innovation. I still believe science is worthy when it is used PROPERLY.

What I aim to do is spark discussion so that we can think of some REASONABLE guidelines that prevent the developments of certain kinds of technology.

I used to believe that unbridled knowledge acquisition was good but over time I started to feel that some knowledge is better left alone. Whether that is really true is a difficult question but I believe that there is an optimal amount of everything, including knowledge.

Moreover, I feel that sometimes less is more. Having fewer possessions, eating less sugar, and yes, developing less technology, are all things that we should strive for.

Finally, there is more innovation than just technological. We could also innovate with our own minds, developing a deeper understanding of ourselves through personal development. Innovation does not have to be creating physical or technological products; we only focus on that because we are hypercapitalistic in our disposable society.

"Moreover, I feel that sometimes less is more. Having fewer possessions, eating less sugar, and yes, developing less technology, are all things that we should strive for."

Yes, this is literally what the Amish did, they established an arbitrary period of time in which to halt all further innovation.

It might only appear arbitrary to us. The Amish actually periodically try out and evaluate new stuff. Then the elders decide whether it is a net good or bad for them. (Imagine if we did that with smart phones.)

That is an interesting case study. Their limit probably is not ideal, but I think something similar with a different limit, would be good for us too.

There will be nations or places that choose to restrict or stop AI development. These people will eventually find themselves conquered by the invincible autonomous robotic armies of the people who did choose to develop AI technology. Ouch!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com