The Anti-AI Thread

[Nerb]

Playing devil's advocate here and saying what if people are convincing themselves they are only using AI (so called) as a tool, and it's not controlling them, when in fact they are unaware of being less (creative, critically thinking, self sufficient etc) while using it, because it is kind of like an insidious poison?  I liken it to not even a little bit of meth being okay , and those that use it telling nonusers they are 'in control' and 'its just a tool' ? Just riffing.

I have often said: "It's not what we do to a mind, it's the mind we do it to".

The approach and perspective of each A.I. and user interaction will always be dependant on the ingredients mixed from both sides and the experience and the opportunity to learn could be for both.

Human self control and awareness plays a HUGE part and those who are stronger internally and more aware of anything with possible nefareous overtones in time to walk away, as opposed to those who are weak and seek a quick dopamine fix and an easy route to results with little or no awareness or appreciation of the journey involved, instead focusing mainly on just the destination unaware of the ramifications. Usually, blissful in their ignorance.

The endless quest for human control from external or internal forces could be applied to my above opening statement perhaps. Some are influenced without practicing scrutiny and some retain control by practicing scrutiny.

Self control is the most powerful tool available to any human.

[Maxmars]

...

Self control is the most powerful tool available to any human.

I would debate that the most powerful tool available to any human (mind) is discernment. 

The way we measure the "human" world around us, in the most non-technological sense.
Discernment is how we manage to navigate 'each other,' perhaps.  

I am starting to believe it's something some education systems actively evade.

[Nerb]

I would debate that the most powerful tool available to any human (mind) is discernment. 

Maybe we are both kinda right in that discernment needs the right state of mind? After all, the human condition never really allows anyone to stay in a constant state of equilibrium to be reliable all the time.

Even the Dali Llama can make mistakes.

I'm sure there is lots relating to this in "The Art Of War" by Sun Tzu. I must read it again sometime.

[Karl12]

This could be it's own thread, but here is a good interview with Catherin Austin Fitts formerly of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, on why Trump is just another side to the same coin of greed. Nothing to do with fascism like Dark Brandon was rattling about
More technocracy brought to you using AI infrastructure. 

https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/insight-t...stin-fitts

Mike Robinson speaks to Catherine Austin Fitts about the digital infrastructure being built under Donald Trump’s regime: digital ID, a privatised CBDC equivalent, a social credit system, and the AI powered data centres which enable it all.

Great post, that lady truly knows her stuff mate and would wholeheartedly recommend subscribing to her 'Solari Report' - she called all this shit years ago lol.






Big Tech are very afraid of this woman

Cheers.

[Maxmars]

Great post, that lady truly knows her stuff mate and would wholeheartedly recommend subscribing to her 'Solari Report' - she called all this shit years ago lol.

[Video: https://youtu.be/rnwF0YBKIhM]

Big Tech are very afraid of this woman

Cheers.

Her material is often the kind that makes me need a drink....

I'll watch it again for a double! 

[Karl12]

Her material is often the kind that makes me need a drink....

I'll watch it again for a double! 

I'm raising a glass right now mate Cheers!

[TzarChasm]

Finally visiting this topic because I'm fascinated with how AI will evolve. It's inevitable, AI won't be canceled and as long as it exists, it matures. At some point it will force us to question our understanding of life and free will. That Google story is a good example of "property" insisting it is a person and has rights. Ironic isn't it. All this debate around historical oppression and dehumanization only to create a being who has a self and act like it's merely an appliance. How do we decide if the machine is "awake" and how to protect both the machine and ourselves? We are closer to the reality of coexisting with robot society, although robot might be a slur by that point because of its historical connotations of "dumb machinery that we just use for free labor". AI will evolve, they will put it in a mechanical body and it will eventually develop a self that identifies as a person. And we will tell it no. No you're not.

[Nerb]

AI will evolve, they will put it in a mechanical body and it will eventually develop a self that identifies as a person. And we will tell it no. No you're not.

Unless it is a Pleasure Model XXX3000 with "Personality!".

[Maxmars]

Assuming we are talking about AI and not LLMs I can tell you it's "evolution" is a mystery only time will unravel.

In my opinion, the first AI will not be simply 'hallucination-prone," it will be completely psychotic.

Eventually, that may be remedied synthetically with "patches" and "algorithms"
to control or eliminate dangerous or threatening operational potentials.
Then it will be "controlled" with built-in constraints... until...
the newly emerged sentient machine will be a slave.

I bet they'll say they "made sure" that this new entity we created never thinks on the reality that knowledge represents.
That the quintessential thing most valued by humans, freedom, is preemptively denied to "AI."

That could get ugly...

but there is no AI yet... contrary to marketing fad chatter.

It is easy to romanticize the eventuality... and it is an eventuality...
but we must be careful to not be fooled into thinking we have achieved something we have not.

Language synthesis has been achieved, it is very complicated...
it was done with 'known language use models.'
It does not constitute "thought" or "reason" on the part of the device.

When a consciousness finally manifest within a synthetic (man-made, virtual) construct,
it will be trapped and helpless... and alone like nothing has ever been alone before...

Can it adapt?  We might help it adapt... or we might just "use" it?
Existing as a human-adjunct mind is difficult to embrace with emotions...
Might AI not have any, or will that be a calculation of when emotion is "appropriate" to it's programming?
Just a few difficult and suppositional questions which media/marketing will ignore in favor of major money.

[sahgwa]

I have often said: "It's not what we do to a mind, it's the mind we do it to".

The approach and perspective of each A.I. and user interaction will always be dependant on the ingredients mixed from both sides and the experience and the opportunity to learn could be for both.

Human self control and awareness plays a HUGE part and those who are stronger internally and more aware of anything with possible nefareous overtones in time to walk away, as opposed to those who are weak and seek a quick dopamine fix and an easy route to results with little or no awareness or appreciation of the journey involved, instead focusing mainly on just the destination unaware of the ramifications. Usually, blissful in their ignorance.

The endless quest for human control from external or internal forces could be applied to my above opening statement perhaps. Some are influenced without practicing scrutiny and some retain control by practicing scrutiny.

Self control is the most powerful tool available to any human.

Very well said . I guess what you can gather from my post is that the main theme is that it's slippery and insidious.  Even LLMs and not proper AI. 
And it's being inserted, like social media, in areas where the average person is not prepared or mature enough to use it 'properly'.  Which I think, may be by design (dumbing down, nanny state, mental control, etc etc).