Thread

1. davesque · 1791076659 · focus · HN ↗

   Yeah I wish we would focus on concrete risks like job displacement and disinformation. The apocalyptic stuff feels either misguided or like some kind of weird, toxic, reverse psychology marketing by OpenAI and Anthropic. I wish we would just move on from it.

   And the folks from podcastistan are never clear on the details of how human extinction would happen exactly. It's always something like, "Well, how do humans regard chickens? AI is way smarter therefore it wants to conquer and control us." An ASML lithography machine is also way better at making chips, but we don't consider it a threat.

   1. stratos123 · 1791107700 · focus · HN ↗

      > The apocalyptic stuff feels either misguided or like some kind of weird, toxic, reverse psychology marketing by OpenAI and Anthropic. I wish we would just move on from it.

      If you for a second put yourself into the shoes of a person who thinks "the apocalyptic stuff" has even a 5% chance of literally happening in the real world, you might see how you wouldn't agree to move on from it.

      1. pantelisk · 1791137415 · focus · HN ↗

         I think what the parent poster is trying to convey, is that let's say the apocalyptic stuff has a 5% chance as you say, but the non-apocalyptic stuff (social-economic chaos, total centralization of power, eradication of social mobility, total information/trust collapse) might have a good 95% chance as we are seeing it starting to unfold already.

         But the discourse is dominated by paper clip experiment discussions and not let's say by the fact that new grads have an unprecedented difficult time getting jobs. Unsurprisingly one of those is a sexy hypothetical beneficial to power and the other one is not.

         Multiple problems can be important, pointing a different one out doesn't invalid or take away from another one.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.