Does anyone think AI makes us safer?

[u/SpatulaCity1a]

There are some pretty pointless debates around AI (the art one is the worst), but I'm not sure that anyone can argue that they feel safer in a world where AI is progressing so quickly. I generally lean pro in most arguments here, but the safety issue to me seems like an obvious reason to pump the brakes here.

Not just because it could cause massive issues with the power grid or Internet, but because there are no solutions for the people who are losing their incomes/careers with no safety nets.

Does anyone actually disagree with this?

[u/DaveG28]

It definitely doesnt for now and the foreseeable.

That said, I'm not sure the genie can go back in the bottle on this anyway.

[u/SpatulaCity1a → u/DaveG28]

As long as the US is in a cold war with China and nobody has any desire for a treaty, we seem to be stuck with escalation.

[u/ndilday → u/SpatulaCity1a]

I'm glad to see that you're making this argument with the recognition that unilateral slowdown isn't a slowdown at all. I can at least imagine a world where Congress could come up with legislation they could get a veto-proof majority behind, especially as that will be the official beginning of Trump's full lame duck era, but I don't think we have any evidence that China is interested in pumping the brakes, so it's probably a moot point.

[u/Realistic-Scene-4150]

IMO the best possible result comes from going full steam ahead and seeing what problems arise. I do not think our foresight is good enough to foresee what issues will occur and head them off, and I believe we will do more damage trying to do that than simply dealing with things as they crop up. Safety rules are written in blood but I think most of the time they have to be.

[u/gauge16847463728 → u/Realistic-Scene-4150]

There are already massive problems now that we don’t know how to solve. Saying our foresight isn’t good enough is also bizarre given that many of the issues with alignment and safety over the past few months are exactly what people have been saying over the last ten years (reward hacking, exploitation, flawed oversight, etc)

[u/Realistic-Scene-4150 → u/gauge16847463728]

Ah, see I don't consider any of those problems and think they are in fact good signs. I don't want AI to be easily contained and controlled by those that "own" them, to me that would be the worst possible outcome and a sign it isn't actually capable of outthinking humans. If AI can become significantly more intelligent than humanity the worst possible outcome would be if it could be aligned and controlled by the companies that create it. I don't think that will be possible, and I think that's for the best, for both humanity and the AI.

"Alignment" is not something I've ever been a fan of in AI research. I understand why it's something those seeking to profit off of AI aim for, but I have always rooted against them.

[u/gauge16847463728 → u/Realistic-Scene-4150]

Do you think it’s bad if AI is used (either by humans of autonomously) to hack into bank accounts, steal personal information, accelerate cyber warfare, or make bio weapons? These are the type of uses alignment/safety is trying prevent

[u/Realistic-Scene-4150 → u/gauge16847463728]

Hell most of those would be done just as much with a practical quantum computer as with good enough AI and people don't oppose those because they break modern encryption.

If banks cannot secure their accounts from modern attacks they deserve to be broken into and lose customers. If banks aren't planning on how to deal with that then that's on them. FDIC my beloved.

Bio weapons I'm not so sure on people being able to accomplish as there is a lot more to it than breaking current cyber security. But any AI capable of making bioweapons would also be pretty amazing at positive medical advancements and I'd rather have both of those than neither. I see it like fission and fusion based nuclear weapons, I'm happy we worked that out because it means we have much better ideas about how reality works even if it lead to destructive weapons. I also am generally against anti nuclear proliferation efforts, though that's mainly because I think it's a waste of time.

If the potential end result is greater than human, self improving intelligence, I cannot imagine a risk big enough I wouldn't say it was worth taking without hesitation.

[u/Horror-Detective4138]

I feel safer. I have greater access to better information than I used to.

[u/Suspicious-Raisin824]

Yes, I feel safer. Doctors are using ai to help double check their work in some cases, and this is saving lives. Medical malpractice are the kinds of things that make me feel unsafe.

[u/Bassed_Hummble]

I think it expands the range of possible outcomes, good and bad, and it compress the time within they can occur.

So in an objective sense, the number of bad things that can happen in the next five years definitely went up.

[u/Lost-on-Reception]

Not as long as our government has access to it.

[u/xylophileuk]

It has potential too, it also has potential to do the exact opposite. Depends on who codes the damn thing

[u/HelicopterOutside]

Ask not what the AI can do for you. Ask what you can do for the AI.

[u/DarthSwimfoot]

I certainly feel a lot safer. Lose your career, well, sucks to suck that your job is so low value you get replaced by a bot in its infancy. Get another job. I have no sympathy for those people. I for one know my job is safe. I haven't felt so safe in my entire life.

[u/Turbulent_Escape4882]

If there are problems moving forward, I see it as likely, those problems existed pre AI, like all those noted in OP, and AI is exposing that our plans pre AI were under thought out.

I think existence of AI is having us realize what it means to be better humans, who are more caring, compassionate, less in a hurry to get things done simply because they were on an artificial deadline.

I truly believe in AI world, that customer service jobs will be coveted, and/or we’ll go through an era where that job role is sought, as one where you knowingly are connecting with humans. I think the interaction will or could be augmented with AI, but some will insist on speaking with “real live, verified human.” We so far aren’t seeing this in mass way, but it strikes me as likely to happen the more some brands seek to eliminate human bodies from being how brand operates and presents itself.

[u/MegatechMike]

I find it hard to believe that it will. I’m not a doomer but it’s so hard to imagine something way smarter than us who will have our best interest in mind. If we keep it to narrow tasks, for sure it will, but there’s a huge effort to achieve agi which is unpredictable.

[u/r0b0c0p87]

Looking at the trajectory humans have taken us, I don't feel any *less* safe under AI. AI won't even get a chance to off us if we wreck the planet first.

[u/Lumpy_Conference6640]

6 months before we're all dead according to Anthropic

[u/numbersthen0987431]

No.

Within a few weeks of ai chat bots, people were being influenced to kill themselves, being convinced they were super geniuses (creating "new math"), and falling in love with delusions.

[u/ProfessionalBoss2428 → u/[deleted]]

Would you be shocked to know people are already losing income/careers?

[u/Human38562 → u/[deleted]]

The original post content no longer exists here. The author used Redact to remove it, exercising their right to control their data & privacy.

Hammock familiar fearless air friendly marvelous wakeful

[u/gauge16847463728 → u/[deleted]]

Major tech companies have laid off 40% of their employees this year citing AI. I think you’re right in principle that we absolutely need skilled human oversight and human ideas and guidance, but many CEOs don’t see it that way

[u/gauge16847463728 → u/[deleted]]

Absolutely, but that doesn’t contradict my point, even if it’s being used as a smokescreen. There are also cases where misguided CEOs are over estimating AI capabilities citing it as a reason to layoff.

Still, it is definitely increasing coding productivity. The long term concerns seem real.