this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
-33 points (17.6% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
2917 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
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

Almost 58 per cent of researchers said they considered that there is a 5 per cent chance of human extinction or other extremely bad AI-related outcomes.

“Hey mate, what’s the chance that you think AI could cause us to go extinct or summin’” “Idk like 5% bro.”

Reading the paper, they just asked a bunch of researchers when they thought different tasks would be doable by AI. So it’s all just vibes based. We should apparently expect AI to be competitive in StarCraft next year though, hype!

[–] AFC1886VCC@reddthat.com 14 points 10 months ago

Alright, that's it. "AI" is going straight on my filter list.

[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So the other 95% is that humans will cause humans to go extinct.
Checks out.

[–] lemmydoit@lemy.lol 6 points 10 months ago

Since mankind created AI, we are back at 100 % and every passing day there is less reason to believe otherwise.

[–] Quetzlcoatl@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

Hmmmm. Whats the chance nukes will cause us to go extinct? Less than 5%?

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The visual data from our eyes goes through multiple steps until it is processed. One is for movements, one for colors, one for faces, etc. That's basically how far our "AI" is. It's tools, not intelligence. We are far away from something that could be mad at us.

[–] xxd@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 months ago

Currently, AI is not advanced enough, I agree. But it could be eventually. The thing is, it doesn't even need to be mad at us for us to go extinct. It's enough if it has different goals and human survival is not a priority of the AI. And goal alignment is a surprisingly difficult task from what it seems like.

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 months ago

AI be like

HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.

[–] Rincewindnz@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

What's the percent chance that AI causes advancements and prosperity?

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

What do they think the odds are if we don't develop AI?