Human beings built it, literally to serve their/our purposes. We are, whether we like it or not, a tool using Species. I think to some extent we can’t help making tools
The tool isn’t sentient, it’s an inanimate fucking object, a pattern of ones and zeros being bounced around inside doped silicon crystals cut into clever shapes.
and we’re an electrified ball of meat in a biological mech-suit, with lots of tiny electrical impulses being bounced around inside a biological matrix (no , not the film, look it up)
There are plenty of shit tools.
I’ll add emphasis and extra context because given the replies it seems i haven’t communicated the actual question very well.
someone posted :
Technology exists to serve us. If it murders us, even if we tell it to, it is the problem.
To that i responded with
Why does it exist to serve us?
Seems that was lacking context, so here is the emphasis version with all the context.
QUESTION START
Yes, technology exists and will kill us if we design it well enough and then tell it to kill us (not murder, because that implies intent)
It sounds like you think technology exists only to serve us, i would like to know if you do, in fact, think that and if so, why?
Technology will do exactly as it’s designed to do , that includes poorly designed technology, if we design something for a task and fuck up that design/implementation badly enough then the technology will not be serving our intended purposes.
Also what is your opinion on the idea that technology can exist/be designed just to exist, not to serve directly; Think “art installations” or systems designed with emergent (unplanned) behaviours as a goal.
QUESTION END
Note i didn’t mention sentience, sapience, AGI or any other form of independent machine intelligence.
Yes, your initial question was indeed poorly worded.
I feel like you’re arguing semantics. Yes, technology exists to serve us. No, that doesn’t mean every tool needs to have some sort of use case checking, a tool will do as it’s used, provided it’s not a shit tool that explodes or whatever.
A machete will cut jungle or throats, it doesn’t know the difference or care, that’s on the user.
A plagiarism machine capable of no more than simply guessing at the desired output sold by charlatans as an artificial intelligence to an increasingly ignorant and desperate population is a much more complicated example.
It’s arguably working as designed, but ultimately the problem here is that of the aforementioned fraud. What they have is being sold as something it’s categorically not in the headline, with the reality buried in obfuscated small print.
The whole LLM bubble is balanced on the assertion that by scaling up the plagiarism machine, it will become greater than the sum of it’s parts. Now, enough advances in learning models have been made that AI research is only going to accelerate but the bubble around the current “product” isn’t economically sustainable. No matter what happens, there are going to be some massive losses when reality finally bites.
I wasn’t arguing semantics, i was trying to figure out what semantics you were using and why so i could better understand the perspective.
I agree with all of those LLM arguments, with the exception that the last one is missing a bit on the end.
The LLM bubble is working as designed, to enrich the people running the scam, lots of people are going to lose a lot of money but i’d wager on the architects/early participants of the scam coming out with a large net positive.
I’m sorry, but if you’re so incredibly detached from reality and humanity that you can’t see why the things we create should benefit us, you have some very deep errors in your cognition or morality. This isn’t something you can be reasoned out of. You need professional help. It’s like someone demanding I debate them on why flaying people alive is wrong. I don’t know how to convince you to care about people. You either do or you don’t. I’m sorry, but there are some stances where all I can tell you is to go seek out therapy.
i wasn’t demanding a debate, i asked what i thought was a simple question in response to something you posted with a degree of certainty i didn’t understand.
If you aren’t capable of answering, that’s fine.
If you need to come up with a reason why you haven’t answered that’s also fine (but unnecessary), this isn’t a trial, there’s nothing riding on whether you answer or not.
While “i’m right and to even question my position is mental illness” is delightfully interesting as a mindset I’m not sure an answer from you would be of any help as a baseline.
The base problem is the technology.
Technology exists to serve us. If it murders us, even if we tell it to, it is the problem.
Why does it exist to serve us?
Human beings built it, literally to serve their/our purposes. We are, whether we like it or not, a tool using Species. I think to some extent we can’t help making tools
Agreed.
I was asking why they must serve our needs.
Because it would be a shit tool if it didn’t?
What kind of stupid question is this?
The tool isn’t sentient, it’s an inanimate fucking object, a pattern of ones and zeros being bounced around inside doped silicon crystals cut into clever shapes.
and we’re an electrified ball of meat in a biological mech-suit, with lots of tiny electrical impulses being bounced around inside a biological matrix (no , not the film, look it up)
There are plenty of shit tools.
I’ll add emphasis and extra context because given the replies it seems i haven’t communicated the actual question very well.
someone posted :
To that i responded with
Seems that was lacking context, so here is the emphasis version with all the context.
QUESTION START
Yes, technology exists and will kill us if we design it well enough and then tell it to kill us (not murder, because that implies intent)
It sounds like you think technology exists only to serve us, i would like to know if you do, in fact, think that and if so, why?
Technology will do exactly as it’s designed to do , that includes poorly designed technology, if we design something for a task and fuck up that design/implementation badly enough then the technology will not be serving our intended purposes.
Also what is your opinion on the idea that technology can exist/be designed just to exist, not to serve directly; Think “art installations” or systems designed with emergent (unplanned) behaviours as a goal.
QUESTION END
Note i didn’t mention sentience, sapience, AGI or any other form of independent machine intelligence.
Yes, your initial question was indeed poorly worded.
I feel like you’re arguing semantics. Yes, technology exists to serve us. No, that doesn’t mean every tool needs to have some sort of use case checking, a tool will do as it’s used, provided it’s not a shit tool that explodes or whatever.
A machete will cut jungle or throats, it doesn’t know the difference or care, that’s on the user.
A plagiarism machine capable of no more than simply guessing at the desired output sold by charlatans as an artificial intelligence to an increasingly ignorant and desperate population is a much more complicated example.
It’s arguably working as designed, but ultimately the problem here is that of the aforementioned fraud. What they have is being sold as something it’s categorically not in the headline, with the reality buried in obfuscated small print.
The whole LLM bubble is balanced on the assertion that by scaling up the plagiarism machine, it will become greater than the sum of it’s parts. Now, enough advances in learning models have been made that AI research is only going to accelerate but the bubble around the current “product” isn’t economically sustainable. No matter what happens, there are going to be some massive losses when reality finally bites.
I wasn’t arguing semantics, i was trying to figure out what semantics you were using and why so i could better understand the perspective.
I agree with all of those LLM arguments, with the exception that the last one is missing a bit on the end.
The LLM bubble is working as designed, to enrich the people running the scam, lots of people are going to lose a lot of money but i’d wager on the architects/early participants of the scam coming out with a large net positive.
Why does technology exist to serve us?
By brother in Christ, you need to come back to the world.
I see, a position so blindingly obvious it doesn’t warrant a response or one that isn’t particularly defensible so deflection is the go-to.
Not to the question i asked, but an answer nonetheless.
I’m sorry, but if you’re so incredibly detached from reality and humanity that you can’t see why the things we create should benefit us, you have some very deep errors in your cognition or morality. This isn’t something you can be reasoned out of. You need professional help. It’s like someone demanding I debate them on why flaying people alive is wrong. I don’t know how to convince you to care about people. You either do or you don’t. I’m sorry, but there are some stances where all I can tell you is to go seek out therapy.
i wasn’t demanding a debate, i asked what i thought was a simple question in response to something you posted with a degree of certainty i didn’t understand.
If you aren’t capable of answering, that’s fine.
If you need to come up with a reason why you haven’t answered that’s also fine (but unnecessary), this isn’t a trial, there’s nothing riding on whether you answer or not.
While “i’m right and to even question my position is mental illness” is delightfully interesting as a mindset I’m not sure an answer from you would be of any help as a baseline.
Thanks anyway though.