• teft@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What happens in the scenario where a super-intelligence just uses social engineering and a human is his arms and legs?

    • stewsters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly you probably don’t even need to exist to do that.

      Humans have been trying hard to do that on their own.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think a sufficient “Doom Scenario” would be an AI that is widespread and capable enough to poison the well of knowledge we ask it to regurgitate back at us out of laziness.

  • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There will be more than enough humans willing to help AI kill the others first, before realizing that “kill all humans” actually meant “kill all humans”.

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meanwhile, the power grid, traffic controls, and myriad infrastructure & adjacent internet-connected software will be using AI, if not already.

    • the_q@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure all of the things you listed run on Pentium 4s.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    doesn’t take a lot to imagine a scenario in which a lot of people die due to information manipulation or the purposeful disabling of safety systems. doesn’t take a lot to imagine a scenario where a superintelligent AI manipulates people into being its arms and legs (babe, wake up, new conspiracy theory just dropped - roko is an AI playing the long game and the basilisk is actually a recruiting tool). doesn’t take a lot to imagine an AI that’s capable of seizing control of a lot of the world’s weapons and either guiding them itself or taking advantage of onboard guidance to turn them against their owners, or using targeted strikes to provoke a war (this is a sub-idea of manipulating people into being its arms and legs). doesn’t take a lot to imagine an AI that’s capable of purposefully sabotaging the manufacture of food or medicine in such a way that it kills a lot of people before detection. doesn’t take a lot to imagine an AI capable of seizing and manipulating our traffic systems in such a way to cause a bunch of accidental deaths and injuries.

    But overall my rebuttal is that this AI doom scenario has always hinged on a generalized AI, and that what people currently call “AI” is a long, long way from a generalized AI. So the article is right, ChatGPT can’t kill millions of us. Luckily no one was ever proposing that chatGPT could kill millions of us.