this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
524 points (93.2% liked)

Technology

59086 readers
3617 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The majority of U.S. adults don't believe the benefits of artificial intelligence outweigh the risks, according to a new Mitre-Harris Poll released Tuesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Uncle_Iroh@lemmy.world 57 points 1 year ago (55 children)

Most of the U.S. adults also don't understand what AI is in the slightest. What do the opinions of people who are not in the slightest educated on the matter affect lol.

[–] walrusintraining@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (5 children)

You don’t have to understand how an atomic bomb works to know it’s dangerous

[–] Wolf_359@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Prime example. Atomic bombs are dangerous and they seem like a bad thing. But then you realize that, counter to our intuition, nuclear weapons have created peace and security in the world.

No country with nukes has been invaded. No world wars have happened since the invention of nukes. Countries with nukes don't fight each other directly.

Ukraine had nukes, gave them up, promptly invaded by Russia.

Things that seem dangerous aren't always dangerous. Things that seem safe aren't always safe. More often though, technology has good sides and bad sides. AI does and will continue to have pros and cons.

[–] Hexagon@feddit.it 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Atomic bomb are also dangerous because if someone end up launching one by mistake, all hell is gonna break loose. This has almost happened multiple times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

We've just been lucky so far.

And then there are questionable state leaders who may even use them willingly. Like Putin, or Kim, maybe even Trump.

…and the development and use of nuclear power has been one of the most important developments in civil infrastructure in the last century.

Nuclear isn’t categorically free from the potential to harm, but it can also do a whole hell of a lot for humanity if used the right way. We understand it enough to know how to use it carefully and safely in civil applications.

We’ll probably get to the same place with ML… eventually. Right now, everyone’s just throwing tons of random problems at it to see what sticks, which is not what one could call responsible use - particularly when outputs are used in a widespread sense in production environments.

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you're from one of the countries with nukes, of course you'll see it as positive. For the victims of the nuke-wielding countries, not so much.

[–] walrusintraining@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

That’s a good point, however just because the bad thing hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it wont. Everything has pros and cons, it’s a matter of whether or not the pros outweigh the cons.

[–] bogdugg@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

I don't disagree with your overall point, but as they say, anything that can happen, will happen. I don't know when it will happen; tomorrow, 50 years, 1000 years... eventually nuclear weapons will be used in warfare again, and it will be a dark time.

[–] Techmaster@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

No world wars have happened since the invention of nukes

Except the current world war.

[–] GigglyBobble@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You need to understand to correctly classify the danger though.

Otherwise you make stupid decisions such as quiting nuclear energy in favor of coal because of an incident like Fukushima even though that incident just had a single casualty due to radiation.

[–] Uncle_Iroh@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You chose an analogy with the most limited scope possible but sure I'll go with it. To understand how dangerous an atomic bomb is exactly without just looking up a hiroshima you need to have atleast some knowledge on the subject, you'd also have to understand all the nuances etc. The thing about AI is that most people haven't a clue what it is, how it works, what it can do. They just listen to the shit their telegram loving uncle spewed at the family gathering. A lot of people think AI is fucking sentient lmao.

[–] walrusintraining@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t think most people think ai is sentient. In my experience the people that think that are the ones who think they’re the most educated saying stuff like “neural networks are basically the same as a human brain.”

[–] Uncle_Iroh@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

You don't think, yet a software engineer from google, Blake Lemoine, thought LaMDA was sentient. He took a lot of idiots down with him when he went public with said claims. Not to mention the movies that were made with the premise of sentient AI.

Your anecdotal experience and your feelings don't in the slightest affect the reality that there is tons of people who think AI is sentient and will somehow start some fucking robo revolution.

[–] StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm over here asking chatGPT for help with a pandas dataframe and loving every minute of it. At what point am I going to feel the effects of nuclear warfare?

[–] walrusintraining@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m confused how this is relevant. Just pointing out this is a bad take, not saying nukes are the same as AI. chatGPT isn’t the only AI out there btw. For example NYC just allowed the police to use AI to profile potential criminals… you think that’s a good thing?

[–] Jerkface@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like NYC police are the problem in that scenario.

[–] walrusintraining@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah sure “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an outrageous take.

[–] Jerkface@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

The take is "let's not forget to hold people accountable for the shitty things they do." AI is not a killing machine. Guns aren't particularly productive.

[–] WhyIDie@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

you also don't have to understand how 5g works to know it spreads covid /s

point is, I don't see how your analogy works beyond the limited scope of only things that result in an immediate loss of life

[–] walrusintraining@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don’t need to know the ins and outs of how the nazi regime operated to know it was bad for humanity. I don’t need to know how a vaccine works to know it’s probably good for me to get. I don’t need to know the ins and outs of personal data collection and exploitation to know it’s probably not good for society. There are lots of examples.

[–] WhyIDie@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

okay, I'll concede, my scope also was pretty limited. I still stand by not trusting the public with deciding what's the best use of AI, when most people think what we have now is anything more than statistics supercharged in its implementation.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can certainly give that "you" don't need to know but there are a lot of differing opinions on even the things you're talking about inside of the people that are in this very community.

I would say that the Royal we need to know because there are a lot of opinions on facts that don't line up with actual facts for a lot of people. Sure, not you, not me but a hell of a lot of people.

[–] walrusintraining@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I don’t disagree that people are stupid, but the majority of people got/supported the vaccine. Majority is sometimes a good indicator, that’s how democracy works. Again, it’s not perfect, but it’s not useless either.

load more comments (49 replies)