352 karma · joined February 23, 2024
We seem to be moving goalposts to the point that humans don’t even live up to the expectations of the AI critics. The only way you get better at chess is by playing a lot of games and learning from mistakes, that goes for humans or AI agents, not simply by reading about chess.
Your assumptions/intuition about generic human intelligence feels quite incorrect, considering LLMs currently play better than a brand new human player would (presumably without any attempt to fine tune them specific on chess, such as playing thousands of games).
In my understanding of history (pre-enlightenment), people didn’t gather around ideas that were “correct more often” but gathered around ideas and personalities that reinforced their own ignorance, superstitions and biases and were openly hostile to “correct” ideas and truth, especially if those ideas upset tradition or dogma.
I also don’t understand how you’re getting to “violence was not a default until populations grew” since, perhaps, “default” violence was only properly recorded after populations grew and education/writing became more widespread. It’s very likely everyday violence in small groups was simply accepted as “the way things are”and simply ignored, as it often is even to this day.
Being able to punish someone doesn't change the fact that a crash happened and it doesn't change the fact that someone died. There is a difference between punishment and justice, there is rarely ever perfect justice in life.
The best we can do is mitigate harms as much as possible, and it seems self-driving might be the best mitigation of traffic accidents compared to human drivers.
The desperation of AI denialists/skeptics/doomers on HN generally (and in this thread specifically) have reached toxic levels of delusion.
They are still stuck in the denial/anger/bargaining stages of the acceptance process.
People are clearly terrified and not ready for what is coming.
It’s important to question our basic assumptions in the face of entirely new circumstances and new areas of exploration, such as the potential for emergent artificial consciousness.
You might have been called unhinged for caring about animal rights during the era of Descartes when public displays of animal vivisections were considered perfectly fine because animals have no “soul”, but today we would find such displays brutal and horrifying.
We don’t know what we don’t know, so it is important that someone is asking the hard or uncomfortable questions at the edge of our understanding to grope past our own biases even if it seems to be pointless to you right now.
We might just discover something wonderful, that our assumptions were wrong, paving the way to greater enlightenment.
How do we align humans?
This paper makes a distinction between direct operational strain and harm created by governments' responses (like adding fees, procedural barriers, and other types of friction in the system). The second part is where my concern is, when bureaucracy is meant to suppress questionable claims it can also delay or deter legitimate benefits.
The paper says it doesn't/can't make definitive claims about AI's impact, but says the strain is moderate. The conclusion does not seem to suggest any severe operational risk to these agencies/systems. Only 9 of 84 potential cases involved benefits or social protection, and it says most cases are good-faith users.
So, I do question what in the paper would show that the burden is large enough to jeopardize benefits? The main finding seems to be that friction in the system may itself effectively deny legitimate access.
Response to your edit: the $186 billion is GAO's government-wide estimate across 64 different programs and not a fraud figure or addressing individual benefits. It contains administrative and document errors, indeterminate payments, and underpayments. And expecting integrity in a system doesn't prevent criticism in the form of asking whether added enforcement bureaucracies cause more harm to legitimate beneficiaries than it prevents in that system.
So I dug a little deeper: roughly 94% of Medicare/Medicaid dollars and 89% of SNAP dollars passed audit reviews in 2025, but I can't find any national percentages for beneficiary fraud rates overall (which is sort of what we are talking about).
Provider fraud does appear to be the main driver of healthcare losses if we look at the enforcement evidence, but that does not mean every improper payment is abuse. It does seem the programs are audited quite extensively (unlike what some other comments in this thread are claiming).
Don’t audits usually find that vast majority of benefits are valid and correctly applied?
We stay the same? We accept some amount of harm, disease, and want as necessary to the human condition?