I’m not an AI techie and I’m not well educated on LLMs/AI in general. The issue I’m having is the dichotomy between how people talk about it. I’ve heard completely opposite ends of the spectrum. From AI is quickly becoming advanced enough to threaten human society, all the way to its a glorified dictionary/search engine that can’t really do much of anything. I know Lemmy has a steep anti-AI slant. But, can someone talk about this in a way I can wrap my head around why the divide seems so big?

  • HumbleExaggeration@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 hours ago

    My Problem is: Even if your take on AI is true, we give an unreliable piece of software access to the internet and more and more systems and infrastructure. Even if it is not a malicious AI, it can be so unreliable, it might kill us by incompetence. a Sme can be said about some presidents…

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      can be so unreliable, it might kill us by incompetence.

      Same can be said of Homer Simpson manning the console at a nuclear power plant.

      AI is a tool, irresponsible use of a tool is… irresponsible. Just like people puttting “not-self-driving” cars into “supervised driving assistance mode” and taking a nap at the wheel at 80mph.

    • Z72.53@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      LLMs are not intelligent. They lack morals, knowledge, and intent. The only remote risk of extermination is if a company with absolute impunity and endless resources told an LLM to hack the nuclear weapons and if knowledge of how to do that was already published online and processed as training data.

      LLMs cannot do anything new, they can only regurgitate information thats already been stolen.

    • richmondez@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It won’t kill us as a species, but its use may lead to disasters that were unintended and didn’t need to happen. Much of the regulation in other industries is due to that kind of thing happening. Worse, the companies making them are trying to get regulation to curtail other parties development for economic advantage rather than regulation on use which will steer the entire industry.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        disasters that were unintended and didn’t need to happen.

        As you say, every “scientifically based” industrial innovation / breakthrough has had the potential to cause new kinds of mayhem, and most of them did to some degree or another. Burning rivers and CO2 overload in the atmosphere spring to mind, but industrial “accidents” are part and parcel of industrial activity, always have been.