• wantd2B1ofthestrokes@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m not a proponent of this mindset but this seems like an obvious mischaracterization of the argument

    My biggest issues is that it seems to exist only in direct response to “doomers” as they love to say. And are maybe right to criticize, but having the whole thing just being a counter extreme doesn’t work either. And there’s lot of hand waving about technology and history and markets correcting themselves.

    But I’ve never gotten the impression that it’s just a cynical “I don’t care if AI fucks everyone as long as I make money.”

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s 100% not a mischaracterization. Most of the ghouls involved with these AI companies to a one are effective altruists. Who would gladly see millions suffer and die. If they thought it would mean that they and the people they chose would get to go on and colonize space and other worlds etc. They would totally rip this planet, a new hole and shit all over everything just to get them themselves ahead.

      They really really don’t care. Altman, musk, Google, Microsoft. They literally couldn’t care less. Though you’re more than welcome to try to prove otherwise. But I don’t condone masochism.

      • wantd2B1ofthestrokes@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it’s necessarily true that if we listen to “doomers” we get sensible policy. And it’s probably more likely we get regulatory capture.

        But there does exist a sensible middle ground.

        I actually think they are correct to bring up the potential upside as something we should consider more in the moral calculus. But the of course it’s taken to a silly extreme.