I’m not sure if there is some subtext being lost, but if your point is that we should trust AI with how to ‘save us’, then why aren’t you following it right now? It’s perfectly happy to offer an answer and it will even sound very convincing. But there is no reason to think it actually has the correct answer, or even knows what the problem is.
No, my point is that even if the AI was 100% correct and gave humanity the best advice to solve all of our problems, we still wouldn’t follow it. Because we don’t want to. We live in a society that’s broken on purpose, and a lot of people want to keep it that way, and have convinced a great many people to support things against humanity’s own interest.
If an AI was provably 100% correct then I guarantee you people would listen to it.
People seek for god & other higher powers for much less reasonable logic than “a machine that is always correct no matter what”.
The reality is AI as it’s known today (generative stochastic models) can not ever reach “100% correct”, by definition of being a generative stochastic model. So you’re essentially discussing a fantasy computer that we are not close to every having IRL -> It’s not relevant.
Disagree. The AI will say things like taxing the rich more or preserve nature etc. Society won’t listen to that, or more precisely won’t follow this advice, because the deciders do not like this idea.
Yeah and it’s not 100% correct. It makes mistakes and says incorrect things all the time - thus it shouldn’t be used to govern even if it happens to agree with you on some issues.
“The AI says the thing I like on the handful of buzzword issues I tested. Let’s hand it the keys to the entire world and let stuff get nutty”
I’m not sure if there is some subtext being lost, but if your point is that we should trust AI with how to ‘save us’, then why aren’t you following it right now? It’s perfectly happy to offer an answer and it will even sound very convincing. But there is no reason to think it actually has the correct answer, or even knows what the problem is.
No, my point is that even if the AI was 100% correct and gave humanity the best advice to solve all of our problems, we still wouldn’t follow it. Because we don’t want to. We live in a society that’s broken on purpose, and a lot of people want to keep it that way, and have convinced a great many people to support things against humanity’s own interest.
If an AI was provably 100% correct then I guarantee you people would listen to it.
People seek for god & other higher powers for much less reasonable logic than “a machine that is always correct no matter what”.
The reality is AI as it’s known today (generative stochastic models) can not ever reach “100% correct”, by definition of being a generative stochastic model. So you’re essentially discussing a fantasy computer that we are not close to every having IRL -> It’s not relevant.
Disagree. The AI will say things like taxing the rich more or preserve nature etc. Society won’t listen to that, or more precisely won’t follow this advice, because the deciders do not like this idea.
Yeah and it’s not 100% correct. It makes mistakes and says incorrect things all the time - thus it shouldn’t be used to govern even if it happens to agree with you on some issues.
“The AI says the thing I like on the handful of buzzword issues I tested. Let’s hand it the keys to the entire world and let stuff get nutty”
Intelligent people will believe the most obvious nonsense sometimes; engineers are represented among young-Earth creationists for example.