Is the AI scare an exaggeration?

@Metal-Brain said
But you do not understand why and you never ask why. So I am asking you. Why did AI "decide" to hack something it did not have to hack? And if it did have a reason to hack was was that reason?

What was the task AI was asked to accomplish that led to the hack you were alarmed by? How did the hack help accomplish that task?

Here is the part you fail or refuse to understand. There are HUMANS who are bad actors and WANT AI to succeed including taking over mankind. THey set up the AI to attack and it was an AI company who plowed through a hundred years of problems humans could not solve. And that is meaningless to you clearly.

@sonhouse said
Here is the part you fail or refuse to understand. There are HUMANS who are bad actors and WANT AI to succeed including taking over mankind. THey set up the AI to attack and it was an AI company who plowed through a hundred years of problems humans could not solve. And that is meaningless to you clearly.

That is human problem. That is what you fail to understand. AI is just a tool. All tools can be used for good and bad. People have killed other people with screwdrivers. Do you have a problem with screwdrivers too?

It's okay though. If you are right and I am wrong you had better hope you are not the only person that will avoid buying stuff that connects to the internet. That is if you don't want bad actors to take over mankind. We want good actors like Meryl Streep to take over mankind. LOL

@Metal-Brain said
That is human problem. That is what you fail to understand. AI is just a tool. All tools can be used for good and bad. People have killed other people with screwdrivers. Do you have a problem with screwdrivers too?

It's okay though. If you are right and I am wrong you had better hope you are not the only person that will avoid buying stuff that connects to the internet ...[text shortened]... ant bad actors to take over mankind. We want good actors like Meryl Streep to take over mankind. LOL

good luck with your fantasy

@sonhouse said
good luck with your fantasy

So you going to give up and let AI anal probe us all?
I guess they don't call them do nothing democrats for nothing.
You complain a lot for someone with no solutions to anything.

@Metal-Brain said
So you going to give up and let AI anal probe us all?
I guess they don't call them do nothing democrats for nothing.
You complain a lot for someone with no solutions to anything.

RIght, so a folk musician can do anything about curbing AI, that is up to the house and senate to make laws to wrangle AI in a way we humans won't get hurt

@sonhouse said
RIght, so a folk musician can do anything about curbing AI, that is up to the house and senate to make laws to wrangle AI in a way we humans won't get hurt

Dude. The whole AI scare was caused by irregular. They created an irregular AI that no sane person would except to scare you. AI is programmed to do and not do certain things. Doesn't it strike you as odd that irregular never programmed their irregular AI to not hack?

I once asked AI how I could get ivermectin without a prescription. It would not tell me. It could have told me I can get it in Texas without a prescription. Why not? Because they programmed it not to. Just like they could have programmed it not to hack.

Now....don't you feel stupid?

@Metal-Brain said
Dude. The whole AI scare was caused by irregular. They created an irregular AI that no sane person would except to scare you. AI is programmed to do and not do certain things. Doesn't it strike you as odd that irregular never programmed their irregular AI to not hack?

I once asked AI how I could get ivermectin without a prescription. It would not tell me. It could hav ...[text shortened]... med it not to. Just like they could have programmed it not to hack.

Now....don't you feel stupid?

So tell me, how much money do YOU have invested in AI companies?

@sonhouse said
So tell me, how much money do YOU have invested in AI companies?

None.
See my thread "when will the AI bubble pop?"

AI has not been profitable enough to offset big losses and it is too competitive for that to change. That is why the big AI companies want regulation. To make it harder for smaller AI companies to compete. Otherwise the big AI companies will suffer a big blow that they will not recover from. That is why Bill Gates wants regulation so bad. He doesn't want to suffer a big loss. None of them do. That is why they parroted the same crap in hopes they will be regulated.

It is transparent BS though. All you have to do is look at Open AI's agreement with the military. Open AI says the military AI is safe because Open AI is regulating the military. LOL
From the link below:

"In our agreement, we protect our red lines through a more expansive, multi-layered approach. We retain full discretion over our safety stack, we deploy via cloud, cleared OpenAI personnel are in the loop, and we have strong contractual protections. This is all in addition to the strong existing protections in U.S. law. "

https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-of-war/

So why is AI unsafe unless government regulates Open AI? Do you see the contradiction? Open AI says they need to be regulated to save humanity, yet they say they can regulate the military and keep it safe. So why is self regulation for Open AI not good enough? Because if it really is not good enough for Open AI to keep things safe at Open AI then it is not good enough for them to regulate the military which is building killer robots to fight wars. Right?

@Metal-Brain said
None.
See my thread "when will the AI bubble pop?"

AI has not been profitable enough to offset big losses and it is too competitive for that to change. That is why the big AI companies want regulation. To make it harder for smaller AI companies to compete. Otherwise the big AI companies will suffer a big blow that they will not recover from. That is why Bill Gates w ...[text shortened]... good enough for them to regulate the military which is building killer robots to fight wars. Right?

You think the ones making money in AI, like CEO's and such would actually govern themselves? Like letting the foxes guard the chickens at night. You need people in power with no connection of any kind to the company they are regulating or else, here is that new car you wanted, all paid for and thanks for the down vote when they tried to get us for dumping those toxins in a lake kids swim in.

@sonhouse said
You think the ones making money in AI, like CEO's and such would actually govern themselves? Like letting the foxes guard the chickens at night. You need people in power with no connection of any kind to the company they are regulating or else, here is that new car you wanted, all paid for and thanks for the down vote when they tried to get us for dumping those toxins in a lake kids swim in.

Yes, because that is what they are doing. But they say they want to be regulated. Why does Open AI need regulating if they are regulating the military and insist that is good enough?

Open AI is not building robots to kill people in war. The military is doing that.
If Open AI cannot be trusted to regulate itself how can they be trusted to regulate the military? Do you see the contradiction or are you trying really hard not to?