225
AI staff 'genuinely frightened' for humanity's future, ex-Anthropic researcher tells BBC (www.bbc.com)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
255 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm not an AI techie and I'm not well educated on LLMs/AI in general. The issue I'm having is the dichotomy between how people talk about it. I've heard completely opposite ends of the spectrum. From AI is quickly becoming advanced enough to threaten human society, all the way to its a glorified dictionary/search engine that can't really do much of anything. I know Lemmy has a steep anti-AI slant. But, can someone talk about this in a way I can wrap my head around why the divide seems so big?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 1 week ago (1 child)

It won't kill us as a species, but its use may lead to disasters that were unintended and didn't need to happen. Much of the regulation in other industries is due to that kind of thing happening. Worse, the companies making them are trying to get regulation to curtail other parties development for economic advantage rather than regulation on use which will steer the entire industry.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    disasters that were unintended and didn’t need to happen.

    As you say, every "scientifically based" industrial innovation / breakthrough has had the potential to cause new kinds of mayhem, and most of them did to some degree or another. Burning rivers and CO2 overload in the atmosphere spring to mind, but industrial "accidents" are part and parcel of industrial activity, always have been.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent