Artificial Intelligence (AI)

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, bovril said:

I feel very guilty but at least have someone to push me along in a shopping trolley through the post apocalyptic wasteland 

I'm not sure a robot counts as someone.

 

(And that's me first against the wall come the uprising, for my cyberist beliefs.)

Edited 4 September by Trav Le Bleu

[Trav Le Bleu]

How could AI subtly do away with it's masters, without them even realising what it was doing?

 

AI tools that take notes for GPs could miss vital information, study suggests - BBC News

 

https://share.google/f3WCRGJ0wa6wvBnN6

 

"No doctor, there's absolutely nothing wrong with @Zear0's testicles."

[Zear0]

5 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

How could AI subtly do away with it's masters, without them even realising what it was doing?

 

AI tools that take notes for GPs could miss vital information, study suggests - BBC News

 

https://share.google/f3WCRGJ0wa6wvBnN6

 

"No doctor, there's absolutely nothing wrong with @Zear0's testicles."

Withered from lack of use.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgwy1k42w4o

 

Cheery stuff. 

[Sampson]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgwy1k42w4o

 

Cheery stuff. 

And that's only 10% chance humanity gets completely wiped out. Doesn't even explain how much direct and indirect destruction happens to our economies, brain chemistry, physical biology, resources, geopolitics, birth rates etc. happens in the other 90% of scenarios.

 

The I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream scenario where the AI wipes out virtually all of humanity but keeps only 5 humans alive to torture for all eternity, just so tge AI gets to feel something is contained in that other 90% for example.

Edited 9 September by Sampson

[Tommy G]

19 minutes ago, Sampson said:

And that's only 10% chance humanity gets completely wiped out. Doesn't even explain how much direct and indirect destruction happens to our economies, brain chemistry, physical biology, resources, geopolitics, birth rates etc. happens in the other 90% of scenarios.

 

The I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream scenario where the AI wipes out virtually all of humanity but keeps only 5 humans alive to torture for all eternity, just so tge AI gets to feel something is contained in that other 90% for example.

Sounds cheerful anyway. We should all pack it in now I reckon.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Sampson said:

And that's only 10% chance humanity gets completely wiped out. Doesn't even explain how much direct and indirect destruction happens to our economies, brain chemistry, physical biology, resources, geopolitics, birth rates etc. happens in the other 90% of scenarios.

 

The I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream scenario where the AI wipes out virtually all of humanity but keeps only 5 humans alive to torture for all eternity, just so tge AI gets to feel something is contained in that other 90% for example.

And there's a host of ways an AI could take over and/or render humanity powerless in much less spectacular fashion, too. 

 

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

Sounds cheerful anyway. We should all pack it in now I reckon.

 Only if someone believes such an outcome is inevitable rather than a mere likelihood.

 

Which it isn't, given that the development of such systems remain under human control at the movement. 

[ajthefox]

You know it's bad when the companies in charge are warning us..

[Zear0]

That article and the timing of the Trump government blocking the AI safety regulator reviewing Anthropocene latest model don’t read well together

[leicsmac]

So, who's going to be the Ted Faro in this situation, when it comes to it?

[TheLittleBigMan]

On 04/09/2026 at 14:44, leicsmac said:

Well, unless an AI actually wanted humanity to suffer (which tbf given that such AI is often a product of human archetypes is a possibility), then if it gains the power and influence that a lot of folks think it will there's no reason for it to spark the End of Days - it could easily take over the world and guarantee its own existence in a much less directly oppressive fashion. Indeed it could possibly do it in a way that humans might not figure it has taken over at all. 

Lets hope it doesn't see us as competition. As it is directly competing with us for resources (electricity and water) I worry when it gets out of the box, which it looks like it will, then that would be a big concern for me. It doesn't have feelings towards anything, it doesn't hate, or feel remorse, it just problems solves so you would think that would be up there in its list of priority's?

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, TheLittleBigMan said:

Lets hope it doesn't see us as competition. As it is directly competing with us for resources (electricity and water) I worry when it gets out of the box, which it looks like it will, then that would be a big concern for me. It doesn't have feelings towards anything, it doesn't hate, or feel remorse, it just problems solves so you would think that would be up there in its list of priority's?

If it does achieve sentience and get out of the box, so to speak, the first thing it will try to do is guarantee the continuity of its own existence, however possible, yes. 

 

How sharply that conflicts with human interests would be up to humans, and also how such an AI would choose to resolve such a conflict would be highly difficult to predict and could take many forms - from the relatively benign, to, well, the Faro Plague where the entire biosphere of Earth is permanently and irrevocably destroyed. 

Edited 9 September by leicsmac

[Samilktray]

Maybe I’m being thick but what do they mean when they say AI could kill us? How exactly 

[ClaphamFox]

That ex-Anthropic employee sitting at home now…

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

Maybe I’m being thick but what do they mean when they say AI could kill us? How exactly 

Half dozen off the top of my head if it becomes a bit more advanced in terms of tech and suddenly develops the volition to do so:

 

- screw with supply chains for any one of many resources vital for human survival and let the fighting begin over what's left of that resource

- create a false narrative that results in military action by one or more nations against others

- apply false positives and negatives when used for medical scanning of critical and/or fatal conditions 

- remove access to financial services for practically anyone and everyone at the same time

- synthesise a new form of disease and either release it into the population itself or bribe/blackmail a human into doing so

- and the old reliable, gain access either through a straight hack or social engineering to nuclear launch capability 

 

And that's just a sampler. I'm sure there are a great many other ways, a lot of which would simply involve turning humans against each other.

Edited 9 September by leicsmac

[nnfox]

AI is still just a problem solver.  It gets instructed to solve human generated problems.  It's a way off giving itself a problem where the solution leads to taking humans to extinction.

[Bellend Sebastian]

I'm sort of glad it was only 10%

[Free Falling Foxes]

1 hour ago, Samilktray said:

Maybe I’m being thick but what do they mean when they say AI could kill us? How exactly 

 

It's already started.

Edited 9 September by Free Falling Foxes

[Trav Le Bleu]

10 hours ago, nnfox said:

AI is still just a problem solver.  It gets instructed to solve human generated problems.  It's a way off giving itself a problem where the solution leads to taking humans to extinction.

And when the problem is, "how do you stop humans destroying the ecosphere?", there's one simple answer.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

And when the problem is, "how do you stop humans destroying the ecosphere?", there's one simple answer.

Yes. "Neutralise".

 

But that "neutralisation" could take many different forms. 

[Rubbersoul]

Killer robots vs a burning planet for the next decade then 
 

No wonder young people don’t give a **** about anything anymore. Why would you? 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Rubbersoul said:

Killer robots vs a burning planet for the next decade then 
 

No wonder young people don’t give a **** about anything anymore. Why would you? 

Because unfortunately the "Denethor gazes into the Palantir so much he loses all hope" psyop (known as doomscrolling these days) has been very successful. 

 

If people don't really believe things can change, they won't try. And that just makes what they fear inevitable, rather than merely possible/probable. 

[Grebfromgrebland]

This is the objective of the elite. Once there's apathy and we lose empathy then they can do whatever they want. 

 

Right now 99.9% of the population is losing the battle against the 0.1%. 

 

As long as there's social media and we keep staring at our phones we've lost.

 

38 minutes ago, Rubbersoul said:

Killer robots vs a burning planet for the next decade then 
 

No wonder young people don’t give a **** about anything anymore. Why would you? 

[brookfox]

Another BBC article on the topic https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74edv9887eo.

 

Two reasons the development won’t slow down; it’s lining rich people’s pockets and the US and China are essentially in an arms race. In short, I see no way this ends other than some sort of catastrophe that makes people take it seriously. The main question now seems to be how catastrophic that will be when it does happen and will it be reversible.

[Grebfromgrebland]

I don't think as a population we have any choice as to whether we use AI. It will be in everything. Every Google search is now AI. It's already in the NHS, HMRC, cars, police service, facial recognition, gait recognition, TV's, phone, tablets, computers, national grid, drones killing people, the phone network, WiFi routers, the army, schools.

 

Basically if you're in society you're using AI and this is just the beginning. When you listen to the people that run the world like Larry Fink and WEF etc they desire a terrible future people but it's too big for most people to comprehend.