"But Altman isn’t completely mistaken in his vision. One strong argument in favor of AI—and technology in general—that’s not only hard to refute but widely supported by evidence is that, given enough time, technological progress improves humanity’s quality of life and life expectancy "
What is that evidence? After creating the risk of nuc…
"But Altman isn’t completely mistaken in his vision. One strong argument in favor of AI—and technology in general—that’s not only hard to refute but widely supported by evidence is that, given enough time, technological progress improves humanity’s quality of life and life expectancy "
What is that evidence? After creating the risk of nuclear war in the 20th century (which has not diminished since), we also added the existential risks of climate change and biodeversity loss. Isnt all the evidence pointing towards the conclusion that we increased the risk of extinction over the last 100 years?
Yes, but I wouldn't say that's because of technology itself (e.g., the technology that created nuclear bombs also helped with nuclear power plants), but because of how the system works. Capitalism is much more at fault than technology here. Also, "given enough time" is doing a lot of work there, because if we were living in the 15th century, you could argue the same about the printing press leading to European religious conflicts.
I agree with you here. Afaik, please correct me, we do not have a good theory of power. The best I know is the one of information asymmetries. Information asymmetries, like the ones we have in the internet (with citizens giving away their data for free and corporations/government collecting it to build a surveillance state) can be used as a proxy for power asymmetries. My question now is: Will AI increase or decrease these information asymmetries?
Infant child births have drastically decreased worldwide, some diseases have been eradicated. Greed and shortsightedness (related to one another) are a big risk. The fight is for societies to improve and the global trend has been upward on that front. The risks are always great. The more we know the more we can counterbalance. The problem is not with what we know or discover.
I agree with you. But I dont see how your reply addresses my point. Afaics you are not arguing against my observation that we increased the risk of extinction over the last 100 years. Unless you can give me some details of what you think we should do to counterbalance ...
"But Altman isn’t completely mistaken in his vision. One strong argument in favor of AI—and technology in general—that’s not only hard to refute but widely supported by evidence is that, given enough time, technological progress improves humanity’s quality of life and life expectancy "
What is that evidence? After creating the risk of nuclear war in the 20th century (which has not diminished since), we also added the existential risks of climate change and biodeversity loss. Isnt all the evidence pointing towards the conclusion that we increased the risk of extinction over the last 100 years?
Yes, but I wouldn't say that's because of technology itself (e.g., the technology that created nuclear bombs also helped with nuclear power plants), but because of how the system works. Capitalism is much more at fault than technology here. Also, "given enough time" is doing a lot of work there, because if we were living in the 15th century, you could argue the same about the printing press leading to European religious conflicts.
I agree with you here. Afaik, please correct me, we do not have a good theory of power. The best I know is the one of information asymmetries. Information asymmetries, like the ones we have in the internet (with citizens giving away their data for free and corporations/government collecting it to build a surveillance state) can be used as a proxy for power asymmetries. My question now is: Will AI increase or decrease these information asymmetries?
Infant child births have drastically decreased worldwide, some diseases have been eradicated. Greed and shortsightedness (related to one another) are a big risk. The fight is for societies to improve and the global trend has been upward on that front. The risks are always great. The more we know the more we can counterbalance. The problem is not with what we know or discover.
I agree with you. But I dont see how your reply addresses my point. Afaics you are not arguing against my observation that we increased the risk of extinction over the last 100 years. Unless you can give me some details of what you think we should do to counterbalance ...