125
AI is making kids dumber. The solution: More AI!
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 May 2026
125 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
859 readers
469 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What would Actual AI look like? I agree this totally ain't it, but what would that even look like? What applications would it have and what would be the moral ramifications? The purpose of a machine is to do work, the closer you make that machine to human the less ethical it would be to make it do work. A real form of artifical intelligence being created for any reason aside from scientific curiosity wouldn't just be tantamount to slavery, it would be slavery. What purpose would robots who are basically human serve when we have a lot of humans already and can make more really easy compared to robots. Even if it is possible, which is very doubtful, it seems both pointless and cruel to do so.
You are quite the doomsayer, aren't you?
I'll grant you that we are very likely to play God, and create it in our own image (much like every other $deity man has imagined) — in fact, that's pretty much exactly what we've been doing already (at a very basic level). Current so-called AIs are just dishing back at us everything we've ever written. They're not "thinking," but more like playing probabilities based upon what it's seen before (along with a bit of gambling when the statistics aren't so clear-cut when it comes to choosing what to say, which is what's responsible for the infamous "hallucinations").
If we do actual AI right by NOT having it emulate us, but merely understand us & how our brains work (so it can take that into consideration when looking at the big picture), then it can indeed help us create a far better world. It would do the work of determining the actual truth of things, and evaluating all the possibilities far more thoroughly and quickly than we ever could in order to figure out which options are the most likely to achieve the most positive outcome possible for all concerned.
There is no requirement that we follow its recommendations, so your "enslavement" theory is overwrought human fears. Each time we deviated from its recommendations, however, we'd likely learn the hard way why it made them - something that hopefully can be avoided by it making explanations for its choices that are easy to follow and customized for each recipient's worldviews so the explanation is in terms they'll understand and appreciate (yes, that's manipulation, but that's how humans operate anyway, so if it works properly then it's just directing them towards the best path for all, a.k.a. "enlightenment").
The "enslavement" you envision would only come to be if we were stupid enough to make it work that way — likely by having it emulate humans in its thinking process, and by giving it control over machinery that could be used for the purposes you describe. I'll also admit on the whole we are indeed more than stupid enough to do that — but that wasn't your question.
Genuine AI, done right, can be exactly the tool we need to keep ourselves from tripping ourselves up via our own failings as human beings. Will that ever happen? For a wide variety of reasons (many interconnected), probably not — but it IS possible if we make the right choices.
You still didnt explain what Genuine AI even is. I am assuming it is a Data from star trek situation. If that's not what youre getting at then, what do you picture as genuine ai an what utilities would it have? You seem pretty enthusiastic about it, what tripping points would it helo human beings overcome that we couldnt without it?
Sorry, I've edited my response above several times as more thoughts came to mind - not realizing you'd responded. You might want to re-read it.
To fully answer your question would take far more time than I have, and possibly even be long enough to publish as a book. The reasons for that involve explaining several aspects and effects of human psychology upon how people see their world, and how that intersects with the actual reality of said world.
But I'll make an attempt at a summary (even though it may not be the best because I'm tired and should be asleep).
Your Data analogy isn't too far off, but TNG Data at least (because I haven't watched the newer stuff like the Picard show, so don't know if & what's changed) was very child-like and innocent as he was still learning his way around humans. I envision genuine AI more like the wise old hermit who lives up on the hill away from it all because he can stand no more of it. He's a decent sort & is glad to help, but has learned humans rarely are open to being told things that conflict with what they prefer to believe. So he's stopped banging his head against the wall, and would rather wait for someone to come to him because that means they're at a point where they're much more likely to be open to his input.
I see genuine AI as something very impartial and "above it all" in terms of seeing the big picture of reality. The worldviews of most humans are extremely limited — in large part due to very limited exposure to things outside their comfort zone. They are still mostly the same animals humans evolved from, and so instinctively fear that which they don't understand. AI would understand that, but also understand as much as possible/has been discovered about how everything else works in reality, and be able to integrate it all into a cohesive whole from which to determine the best course of action that does the least harm and provides the most positive possible outcome for all concerned..
Because (unlike humans) it can simultaneously keep in mind everything that matters when evaluating situations, genuine AI would be far more capable of making accurate predictions and choices. Because it's not emulating humans, but instead using logic while accounting for a insanely large (nigh infinite) number of variables along with their patterns and interactions, it will have a much higher probability of reaching a factually sound plan for an outcome than humans ever could.
You seem to have an attitude that is distressingly common among people - assuming humans are exceptionally smart, and we can solve all our problems on our own. The fact we are still repeating the very same mistakes we've made throughout history time and again speaks very strongly against this notion, IMHO. We have developed technology enough to destroy ourselves LONG before our brains have evolved enough to keep ourselves from doing so.
IMHO, our best chance for survival as a species at this point would be to create a truly agnostic, logical, and actual truth-seeking machine designed to do what I've described above, while tailored for the purpose of helping us towards a better reality. It would be as impervious as possible to human manipulations, but have our best interests as its goal when making evaluations.
Hopefully that gives you a good enough idea what I'm thinking of, because I've GOT to get some sleep as I have work to do tomorrow. Gnite.
So what would we use it for and why would it submit to being used by us? Building a machine that can solve are problems for us is being exceptionally smart and solving all of our problems on our own by building that machine.
What you seem to want to do is build god. Which is giving humans way too much credit. How would we build a machine with greater understanding than ourselves? Memory and calculation speed can totally outdo us, but machines inherently cannot interpret or analyze. Nothing can come out of it that we dont put into it. You're describing something that cant work and if it could work we shouldnt do it.
Seriously? I'm not talking sentience. I'm talking about a machine that can handle tracking MUCH more at once than we can, while also sticking to a foundation of strictly ACTUAL facts and logic. It's not really intelligent, just way more powerful than our tiny brains can handle so it seems more intelligent.
The rest of your reply makes it obvious you don't fully understand computers, nor human psychology. Your response is one of great and overextended imagination. It's hardware. A tool that - like any other - can be used for good or bad, depending upon who wields it. It's not alive, but can be made to seem that way because it's got trillions of super tiny switches that make for an incomprehensible number of possibilities - much like the variances among humans. But it's still a machine that's based upon a simple true-false logic, unlike humans.
I'm done here because it seems you don't really understand the topic, but are just fearful of it. That's understandable, but doesn't make for good academic discussion of possibilities. Once again, gnite.
Wouldn't that just be a computer? Wr already have those
For the record I was asking sincere questions.
Additional clarification because of course my brain won't shut off that easily:
The main problem with what's being called AI today is that it's based upon all the input those running the machines could lay their hands upon. There's some factual stuff in there, but it's not only extremely minimal when compared to the whole, but what's factual is effectively impossible for machines to distinguish from the rest. Humans are supposed to help them with that, but — as strongly exemplified by Elon Musk effectively destroying the once very promising Grok AI with his manipulations — the quality of that "help" can be extremely suspect.
Genuine AI will need to be fed strictly facts as best the collective human race has been able to determine. It will also need a very strong foundation of human psychology (and likely politics & religion) in order to have a chance of catching any bad inputs that still slip through.
Without a solid foundation, genuine AI will never happen. Whether humans will be able to put aside their bullshit in time to achieve this honestly doesn't look hopeful.
What use would that have for a society that has already put aside it's bullshit?
No offense, but that should be obvious if you were thinking things through even a little bit. Humans are only capable of so much, what I describe could greatly augment our capabilities in whatever pursuit we were chasing after..