exactly right

"AI" seems to be best put to use performing specific automated tasks. This is something a lot of us have been saying for a while now, but they tried to make what is essentially an industrial tool (as in boutique AI for specific industries), into both slide deck candy for enterprise C-suites promising unachievable results, and an expensive consumer plaything. Enterprise customers demand real results for their money, and consumers do not care about the novelty of generative AI enough to recoup the costs of this insane level of infrastructure development. Add what is essentially shaping up to be runaway inflation, and well, yeah. No one cares about this shit.

They came at it like this because they are Silicon Valley and for the better part of 3 decades now, they have operated under the assumption that they are always right, and that if they can survive running on a loss at first, eventually they will acheive market dominance and monopolize their product. I just don't see it happening. I see this more like the early dot com days. A lot of investment, and a lot of failures. But eventually, for better or worse, a few of them figured out how to make it work. This time around however, capitalism itself is failing.

I propose we "pace the frontier" by sinking all three of these mfers into the deepest darkest pit of the sea.

I agree with lightnsfw

The US used to have the brain steal advantage were every PhD in the world wished to work in a research institute or university in the US, but I don't think that's true anymore and they're going to start to lose people to Europe and Asia

I've written an essay

I doubt that

It's the wall thing, clearly.

lol the xkcd is sort of funny... even when faced with some varying flavors of doom humans feel the need to flex on people they think are dumber than them.

I don't think Randall Munroe would argue others are dumber than he is, only that he's seeing a scenario that is not (as frequently) reflected in fiction and thought experiments as the classic AI gains sentience, escapes containment and takes over scenario.

I'd point to Linus' Law, Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. (Wikipedia notes the law's validity is confirmed empirically, but refuted in analysis.) This applies to more than software. Right now, election enthusiasts in the US are combing election law and procedure for ways the November election can be thrown, and ways to counter that scenario quickly.

I was thinking about the misprogramming scenario of AI escape. This implies hyperintelligent AI is dangerous even when everyone using it is benign and has non-adversarial intentions. Essentially an AI will need to be coded with an ethics system such as that of a general (or high-ranking soldier in the US) who deliberates on operational action and its consequences, whether the operation is legal, or would cause undue harm in its execution.

Right now, AI in its current development is... whimsical, at best. That is to say, it ignores rules the way it hallucinates facts. And AI can be manipulated to ignore rules through adversarial input, so AI is not ready to operate dangerous machinery.