General Discussion

Soul_of_Wit

(101 posts)

58. Two huge negatives, both related to human nature

Sun Mar 29, 2026, 02:33 PM

Yesterday

Ow! My eyes.

1. It will accelerate income inequality at a frightening rate. Folks have only begun to realize how many humans will lose their livelihoods. Universal Basic Income is the solution but one should never underestimate the power of greed to overwhelm basic human dignity.

2. Military-industrial complex + end-stage capitalism = lust for profit/power = robot apocalypse. One slip-up allows an AI to reprogram itself. Test scenarios have already shown that a reasonably competent AI goes after the human command and control first. If the AI has the option, then it will use it. Too many developers have failed to learn the lessons from Asimov.

Just look at the "brain trust" currently in charge of the most powerful military on Earth. They have no qualms about violating the US Constitution to squash any AI company willing to resist the potential for a runaway AI. Read up on the dispute between the Department of Defense and Anthropic (the Claude folks.)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, I'm gonna stir the pot a bit... don't be too harsh... [View all] Joinfortmill Yesterday OP

Its a loaded gun, given to a child. Swede Yesterday #1

AI is simply a change accelerant to make the wealthy wealthier more quickly Tim S Yesterday #2

Best explanation of it I've heard so far Walleye Yesterday #3

Except this time genxlib Yesterday #10

Elon Musk promises an age of abundance thought crime Yesterday #23

Elitist billionaires... Safe as Milk Yesterday #53

I believe he said that is one possible path genxlib Yesterday #57

Even Elmo doesn't know what he has in mind. paleotn Yesterday #70

Oh dear lord. Not this shit again. paleotn Yesterday #64

I hope you are right genxlib Yesterday #73

We already have near humanoid robots... paleotn Yesterday #75

Thanks for the interesting links - bookmarking. jmbar2 Yesterday #88

Well, that describes the market. thought crime Yesterday #37

Yup. orangecrush Yesterday #46

Ha! I think I could do better stirring, but I'll pass. BootinUp Yesterday #4

I'd take one of these leftstreet Yesterday #5

Of course, that video was made with AI thought crime Yesterday #26

How about AI is like fire, and has to be controlled FullySupportDems Yesterday #6

Exactly. anciano Yesterday #7

I agree. But it has to have some (considerable regulatory) constraints hlthe2b Yesterday #8

A LOT of constraints! n/t Safe as Milk Yesterday #56

Seems like a... 2naSalit Yesterday #9

It's much better and safer than Google gulliver Yesterday #11

I have yet to find a single AI summary which is accurate. Ms. Toad Yesterday #15

It's better for the AI to tell you about your symptoms than Google gulliver Yesterday #16

It is absolutely NOT better for AI to tell you about your symptoms than Google Ms. Toad Yesterday #76

The trouble with Wiki isn't that it spouts false information on a regular basis. Igel Yesterday #18

Agreed - but it took me until the last paragraph to get the AI connection. Ms. Toad Yesterday #79

I've found many accurate responses from AI summary thought crime Yesterday #28

Those AI overviews are stealing traffic from the websites they stole the information from, and the highplainsdem Yesterday #35

And you've fact checked every bit of its response? Ms. Toad Yesterday #78

A Substantial Majority Of The Time... ProfessorGAC Yesterday #89

A coworker used AI to get a second opinion from his doctor's. Shermann Yesterday #41

I have a long history of correcting doctors with independent research. Ms. Toad Yesterday #81

Anthropic Claude is very accurate. milestogo Yesterday #42

It still hallucinates. All genAI models do. It can hallucinate at any time, and for that reason its highplainsdem Yesterday #47

Define accurate. paleotn Yesterday #65

I haven't specifically checked it myself - Ms. Toad Yesterday #77

And current LLMs do exactly the same thing as Google search or YouTube algorithms. You just don't realize it. paleotn Yesterday #66

While I agree, in principle as to the possibilities for it's use, Ms. Toad Yesterday #12

"AI relies on the stolen works of humans (art and writing)..." mike_c Yesterday #86

Without planning and guardrails... Happy Hoosier Yesterday #13

AI doesn't concern me as much... biocube Yesterday #14

You aren't wrong ... BUT KentuckyWoman Yesterday #17

Of course it is, Disaffected Yesterday #19

If you mean generative AI, the kind most hyped now, it's badly flawed tech based on stolen intellectual property, highplainsdem Yesterday #20

Very true statement mgardener Yesterday #21

Absolutely. It's a key tool of production. David__77 Yesterday #22

It works - to the extent it works when it's mindless and will always hallucinate - only because of IP theft. highplainsdem Yesterday #29

I guess that depends on one's view of "intellectual property". David__77 Yesterday #32

The AI companies who felt they had a right to take everyone else's IP have been quick to scream if highplainsdem Yesterday #40

That's absolutely true and on a certain level funny to see. David__77 Yesterday #82

I'm in favor of creatives owning their intellectual property, and that right being protected. It's as highplainsdem Yesterday #84

That can certainly be adjudicated as with any other property issue. David__77 Yesterday #85

Legal judgments aren't always ethical, as everyone here is aware. Creatives and those who support highplainsdem Yesterday #87

A.I. got us Donald Trump in 2024. Nuff said. Botany Yesterday #24

Wish AI meant actual (human) intelligence. BattleRow Yesterday #49

AI is the devil. We think we can control it, but we can't. Scrivener7 Yesterday #25

Devil with the Blue Dress? She's the Devil in disguise? thought crime Yesterday #31

The problem is not a fork or a knife, the problem is who has it in their hand...An assassin with a knife is very Escurumbele Yesterday #27

"Guns aren't the problem..." ? thought crime Yesterday #33

An accurate analogy, however dlk Yesterday #30

I agree. I've been saying this about computers for decades. However, I think most of us agree that IA should be Martin68 Yesterday #34

I think it sound like a scream.AAAAA.IIIIII... MiHale Yesterday #36

The problem is not how we use it, Mblaze Yesterday #38

The most critical word is "you" -- meaning WHO? Martin Eden Yesterday #39

If it were only looked as a fork Javaman Yesterday #43

We are about to FAFO on AI. LudwigPastorius Yesterday #44

True, AI by itself is benign. The companies controlling it, however, are not. tinrobot Yesterday #45

hmmm...almost 50 replies and no interaction... ret5hd Yesterday #48

I sometimes stir a pot in the kitchen and then walk away until dinner is served Soul_of_Wit Yesterday #60

Don't see how that's "stirring the pot" ABC123Easy Yesterday #50

I do agree with you there. One of my smartest friends, a tech professional, thinks like Joinformill. Scrivener7 Yesterday #55

It's a tool for the billionaire overlords, not for us FakeNoose Yesterday #51

Where was our blue ribbon commission prior to its release. Prairie_Seagull Yesterday #52

AI can be rejected - and should be, by ethical, smart people who have any choice in the matter. highplainsdem Yesterday #59

Granted that using genAI is optional and can be rejected..... anciano Yesterday #62

It's genAI being hyped and used most widely. Which is why people need to know about how harmful highplainsdem Yesterday #63

The sole cat I ever had agreed with you. Prairie_Seagull Yesterday #83

Not like a fork: like a cruise missle with a spork instead of a warhead. JustABozoOnThisBus Yesterday #54

Two huge negatives, both related to human nature Soul_of_Wit Yesterday #58

In addition, we need... cornball 24 Yesterday #61

And using AI harms human intelligence. See this thread on yet another article about that: highplainsdem Yesterday #67

That's very simple Renew Deal Yesterday #68

Sadly, few people are fully able to tell when AI provides facts or fallacies. MineralMan Yesterday #69

This is absolutely true! Oneironaut Yesterday #71

AI differs from a fork in that a fork does not PufPuf23 Yesterday #72

americans can't be trusted with sharp objects bigtree Yesterday #74

AI cannot replace humans Progressive dog Yesterday #80