From the article: “In particular, five fundamental attributes of social media have harmed society. AI also has those attributes. Note that they are not intrinsically evil. They are all double-edged swords, with the potential to do either good or ill. The danger comes from who wields the sword, and in what direction it is swung. This has been true for social media, and it will similarly hold true for AI. In both cases, the solution lies in limits on the technology’s use.”

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    To steal an old trope: the tech bros have circled the globe eight times while the government is still putting its boots on. If there’s money to be made via automation, there’s no stopping it (unless we get the guillotines out of mothballs).

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      The problem with any regulation is that it’s going to have unforeseen knock-on effects. It might cripple an otherwise benign use. This can be mitigated by trying to draft smart bills initially by coordinating with leaders in the field who aren’t corporate backers. And then being able and willing to amend laws as these effects take shape.

      Unfortunately this is not how the US congress functions right now and for the foreseeable future. Therefore regulation will likely be sparse and when it is heavy handed, unlikely to be amended unless the knock-on effects are massively bad.

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    There’s a better chance of AI becoming sentient and stopping itself from being harmful than there is that people do the right thing.

  • aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn from history are doomed to watch as those who did not learn repeat it.

  • TheFriar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    See, this is the exact shit I mean when I scaremonger about AI. Especially in this community, I have been called a few names and likened to some stupid anti-tech movements.

    But it’s not the tech itself. It’s the world and the companies this tech is being borne into and giving power to. This is not the early 80s, where we generally had some sort of capitalist equilibrium going on—as much as an exploitative system can have equilibrium, that is. It’s a post-Reagan 2024, and this system is so out of balance that this is like, in a war between a modernized society and an uncontacted Amazon people, a nuke was dropped.

    Your cars, your phones, your entire online ecosystem, all the smart devices, the cops, the federal govt…they’re all working in a system of surveillance and—honestly, for lack of a better word, though it’s been co-opted and bastardized by conspiracy nut jobs—mind control that we barely understand, let alone have any control over. But that’s exactly what this is, they are astroturfing public opinion, pushing ideas in an almost streamlined fashion, and getting us evermore addicted to these means of coercion.

    And this is all before we even discuss the general balance of “consumer/producer.” Assuming we are even willing to make capitalism come close to functioning (which is a fools errand at this point), we need to completely upend the current imbalance in what we accept as a suitable give/take. They are taking more, while giving us less, and it’s only getting much worse. Now they’re taking way, way more than ever and we get, what, new social media sites in return? Nah. We are no longer consumers, we are products. We are the piece in the puzzle with the least agency.

    And AI is only exacerbating those problems. And that’s all before we get into discussing the massive environmental concerns! We are barreling toward destruction and we are…sinking more computers and server farms and time and infrastructure to completely backwards energy consumers.

    Don’t use their AI, refuse to use social media, jailbreak and privatize your phones, refuse to buy any surveillance nightmare cars, use a TOR browser…do everything we can to wrench just a little of our own data and agency back from them. Because getting all giddy over some shitty chatbot and refusing to heed the warnings of the Reddit and google CEOs literally spelling out how they are harvesting and profiling our data is just beyond stupid and gives them the idea that, as the google ceo said, “well, if you keep using it, it’s your own fault.” Or something to that effect. But at some point, these evil cartoon villains may just be right. We keep following along. At what point do we build parallel systems to evade their reach?

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      The problem is that fear mongering only serves them. Their plan is to stop individuals from having access to it, not companies and they will do so by convincing the population that AI is theft and therefore bringing up the price so only a handful of companies can afford to train models or by convincing the population that it’s too dangerous for the common man to have free access to it.

      • TheFriar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        But individuals can use copyrighted artwork for their own personal use, businesses can’t. I don’t think there’s any attempt to get people to stop using it. As stated in the article (maybe not this one, but a recent one either way, I don’t remember at this point), AI chat bots are a GREAT way to extract obscene amounts of data from people. It’s one of the main draws to it for business, and one of its main uses for future profitability.

        “Fear monger” might have been the wrong term to use, it’s got a negative connotation. But I do believe it’s a dangerous, dangerous step in the current trend of surveillance capitalism. Like I said, it’s akin to the A-bomb in the war over our privacy and data.

    • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      How far in the future? Because if you’re like 100+ years from now I’d just be happy the planet held out that long. Well enough to support a time travel capable society too

      • erwan@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        There will still be humans in 100 years. The planet is fine, we’re just making it harder for us and many other species to survive.

        How many humans there will be, and how they will live is a different question.

          • Jojo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I mean, until it happened it’s just a fiction. Maybe time travel wasn’t possible at all until we nuked ourselves back to the stone age fighting over what was left after climate change.

  • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Or… hear me out… we use AI to make social media even more insufferable than it was before.

  • wise_pancake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    We have two ethics systems:

    The first we apply to healthcare and government, and it’s best sunned up by Micheal Scott “Don’t ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what. No matter… where. Or who, or who you are with, or, or where you are going, or… or where you’ve been… ever. For any reason, whatsoever.”,

    The second is applied to private industry, and it’s best summed up by “innocent, until proven guilty”.

    And that’s why we let private industry roll along with whatever they want, until we can definitively prove harm, but society found it unreasonable to ask people to vaccinate because there was a minute chance of rare side effects less bad than the disease it was for.

  • dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I saw an IBM commercial that depicted an AI personal assistant informing a user that their credit card had been used for a fraudulent charge. It asked the user if a particular charge was legit and they said no. Then the AI informed the user that the transaction had been canceled and a new card had been issued.

    I have a couple problems with this. First, what if the AI was hallucinating parts of this interaction? Secondly, at some point the user’s AI will be interfacing with the bank’s AI, then we will effectively be subservient to a bunch of algorithms automatically running the world and we will basically be children with our AI parents taking care of us.

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      then we will effectively be subservient to a bunch of algorithms automatically running the world and we will basically be children with our AI parents taking care of us.

      That’s the plan.

      Shareholders think they’ll be excluded because they can call and reach a human.

      But it will soon be impossible to be a shareholder over every AI that could possibly fuck you. And we will undoubtedly turn over things to AI that we should have kept control of, to the point of being unable to even help our poor shareholders.

      I expect that everyone will need at least a little prompt engineering in their life before this mess is under control.

      So there’s that to look forward to.

      The good news is AI are just computers wearing fancy pants and can, and will, be unplugged when we learn - the hard way - what uses AI is no good for. I’m sure that’ll be big “who could possibly have seen this coming?!” news, too.

    • BagelEmbezzler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not to mention how voice assistants can just mishear you. Told google once to put dental floss on my shopping list and it said “got it, I added applesauce.” Good try I guess. Pretty trivial this time, but they expect me to trust that for tasks with financial stakes?

  • Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Way too late. All of the harmful parts of social media are exploited and promoted by corporate interests, and llms are shaping up the same. Users have already shown they have no interest in policing themselves, so unless something is done to drastically restrain corporations, there’s little that can or will be done to keep the new thing from being even worse than the old thing.

  • Darkassassin07
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    Bahahahahahha, NEVER gonna happen.

    Humanity learning from its mistakes, I mean.

  • _sideffect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Lmao right; you know this so called “ai” is going to be used and abused for every ounce of gains possible

  • Breve@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hahah but really AI is already being used to amplify and exploit all the problems of social media to new levels. It was nice while it lasted, but we can’t stuff this all back in Pandora’s box.

  • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Meanwhile, reports commissioned by the state department suggesting publishing weights be made illegal, so corporations can have their monopoly of a public technology.