The majority of U.S. adults don’t believe the benefits of artificial intelligence outweigh the risks, according to a new Mitre-Harris Poll released Tuesday.

  • Wolf_359@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Prime example. Atomic bombs are dangerous and they seem like a bad thing. But then you realize that, counter to our intuition, nuclear weapons have created peace and security in the world.

    No country with nukes has been invaded. No world wars have happened since the invention of nukes. Countries with nukes don’t fight each other directly.

    Ukraine had nukes, gave them up, promptly invaded by Russia.

    Things that seem dangerous aren’t always dangerous. Things that seem safe aren’t always safe. More often though, technology has good sides and bad sides. AI does and will continue to have pros and cons.

    • Hexagon@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Atomic bomb are also dangerous because if someone end up launching one by mistake, all hell is gonna break loose. This has almost happened multiple times:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

      We’ve just been lucky so far.

      And then there are questionable state leaders who may even use them willingly. Like Putin, or Kim, maybe even Trump.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        …and the development and use of nuclear power has been one of the most important developments in civil infrastructure in the last century.

        Nuclear isn’t categorically free from the potential to harm, but it can also do a whole hell of a lot for humanity if used the right way. We understand it enough to know how to use it carefully and safely in civil applications.

        We’ll probably get to the same place with ML… eventually. Right now, everyone’s just throwing tons of random problems at it to see what sticks, which is not what one could call responsible use - particularly when outputs are used in a widespread sense in production environments.

    • cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Alright, when the AI takes my job and I can’t feed my family while the billionaires add another digit to their net worth I’ll consider the pros.

      There’s about 0% chance we reform society for AI, it will just funnel more wealth to the rich. People claim it will open new jobs but I don’t see it.

      • Jerkface@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        People have had the same concerns about automation since basically forever. Automation isn’t the problem. The people who use automation to perpetuate the systems that work against us will continue to find creative ways to exploit us with or without AI. Those people and those systems-- they are the problem. And believe it or not, that problem is imminently solvable.

        • cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s fair to compare but you can’t dismiss concerns based on that.

          Past automation often removed duplicate or superfluous work type things, AI removes thought work. It’s a fundamentally different kind of automation than we’ve seen before.

          It will make many things cheaper to do and easier to start some businesses, but it will also decimate workers. It’s also not something that’s generally available to lower classes to wield yet.

          It’s here but I don’t have to be optimistic.

          • Jerkface@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I fully agree with everything you said. My point is more that if we look at AI as the culprit, we’re missing the point. If I may examine the language you are using a bit-

            AI removes thought work.

            Employers are the agents. They remove thought work.

            it will also decimate workers.

            Employers will decimate workers.

            It would be smart to enact legislation that will mitigate the damage employers enabled by AI will do to wokers, but they will continue to exploit us regardless.

            Using language that makes AI the antagonist helps tyrants deflect their overwhelming share of the blame. The responsible parties are people, who can and should be held accountable.

            • cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think you’re wrong either, but at the same time it’s not feasible for everyone to be their own agent and it’s not feasible to say employers can’t use AI.

              I don’t know what the solution is, but I’m prepping for a sudden career change in the next few years.

              • Jerkface@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                In general, progressive taxation can do quite a lot to ease the widening wealth gap. One such strategy is the robot tax. There exist other, perhaps better, legislative solutions, but more broadly we need to restore voting rights and diminish the influence the wealthy have on our political system so that smart, progressive legislation doesn’t have to fight tooth and nail against lobbying and other mechanisms that tie wealth to political influence.

          • Jerkface@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I want to avoid using the term solution, not least of all because implementation has its own set of challenges, but some of us used to dream that automation would do that work for us. Perhaps naively, some of us assumed that people just wouldn’t have to work as much. And perhaps I continue to be naive in thinking that that should still be our end goal. If automation reduces the required work hours by 20% with no reduction in profit, full time workers should have a 32 hour week with no reduction in income.

            But since employers will always pocket that money if given the option, we need more unionization, we need unions to fight for better contracts, we need legislation that will protect and facilitate them, and we need progressive taxation that will decouple workers most essential needs from their employers so they have more of a say in where and how they work, be that universal public services, minimum income guarantee, or what have you.

            We’re quite far behind in this fight but there has been some recent progress about which I am pretty optimistic.

            Edit: for clarification

            • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This was so very thoughtful, and after reading it, I feel optimistic too. Fuck yeah.

              Edit: thank you.

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Technology tends to drive costs down and create more jobs, but in different areas. It’s not like there hasn’t been capture by the super rich in the past 150 years, but somehow we still enjoy better lives decade by decade.

    • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you’re from one of the countries with nukes, of course you’ll see it as positive. For the victims of the nuke-wielding countries, not so much.

    • walrusintraining@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a good point, however just because the bad thing hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it wont. Everything has pros and cons, it’s a matter of whether or not the pros outweigh the cons.

    • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t disagree with your overall point, but as they say, anything that can happen, will happen. I don’t know when it will happen; tomorrow, 50 years, 1000 years… eventually nuclear weapons will be used in warfare again, and it will be a dark time.

    • Techmaster@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No world wars have happened since the invention of nukes

      Except the current world war.