• metermatic26@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Wait, so its not the actual event and ensuing casualties that have AI researchers spooked, but the fact that it might cause the public to turn against AI?

    • metermatic26@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Let me put this in perspective:

      In many countries its against the law to freely distribute plans for making neurotoxins or bombs, because the democratization of such knowledge would lower the threshold for people to commit acts of terror.

      Likewise the plans for making a hydrogen bomb are a close kept government secret, because nuclear proliferation increases the likelihood of radiological accidents or even nuclear war.

      How is it then that AI companies freely publish their AI models to any and all actors willing to pay them? Even though they know that this technology lowers the threshold for bad actors to commit cybercrime, engage in cyberwarfare, spread misinformation, commit fraud, manipulate markets and whatnot? The unregulated democratization of AI exposes societies to unprecedented risks.

      Is it any wonder the public holds a negative view on AI?

      • Nouvellalia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        41 minutes ago

        Why are you comparing a tool used for knowledge and action augmentation to weapons created for destruction? Because your statement would look dumb if you said “electric motors and encyclopedias” instead of “neurotoxins and bombs”.

        I can use both electric motors and encyclopedias to inflict mass casualties against people who refuse to use them or the results of their labor, but that doesn’t make them like bombs and neurotoxins. You’re simply scared of a new technology because it’s so different.