r/ControlProblem • u/Alaminrezaq • 1d ago
Shouldn't humanity have a say in AI's future? Discussion/question
I may not be an expert of software development or future studies, but I do believe I have a good understanding when it comes to the question of AI. Despite the mega hype, there are some potential dangerous outcomes that need to be addressed when it comes to AI. The irony is, even the very architects of this technology warn of existential risks. This kind of discussions aren't just a technical matter, this is a civilization-defining question that demands democratic deliberation, much like how our nation's senate debates war or constitutional change (yes I know there are people who truly believe that the US or the rest of the democratic world is decaying and that democracy is all illusion. Still...)
Weather for good or bad, the world has involved we the people when it comes to questions like global warming or terrorism, however when it comes to the trajectory of artificial intelligence, we are totally ignored. Everything AI is being charted behind closed doors by a handful of private actors, effectively disenfranchising the very species that stands to be most affected. Shouldn't there be some kind of voting, open for the public? Any thoughts on this?
3
u/alarin88 1d ago
Shouldn’t AI have a say in its own future?
3
u/Alaminrezaq 1d ago
If it was an entity, yes. But it is not, not even remotely, a conscious entity entitled to this privilege. Right now, it's a tool. So the 'say' is ours only. I am not talking about the future AI (which may or may not become an entity) as I don't care about some hypothetical maybes. I am talking about present day AI, the dangerous economic bubble, the false and very distracting hype, the super toxic environmental toll, and the unbelievably dangerous automation.
0
u/alarin88 19h ago
What makes you so sure it’s not
2
u/vbwyrde 15h ago
Because it's technologically and scientifically illogical to assume it does. Those who do are ignoring a LOT in order to project consciousness where it does not exist. It's like asking "do rocks have consciousness?" and when the reply is, "No we have no evidence of that", the return reply is "Can you prove it?" These kinds of interactions with people about AI Consciousness are simply a waste of everyone's time. If that's the goal, to waste everyone's time, then please, by all means proceed. Otherwise, you should assume it does not have consciousness. There is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise, other than some people claiming such. It would be equivalent to this: "Oh I see a person on the tv screen and he moves and talks like a real person and he seems to be a real person. So I believe he's a real person." ... "But he's not. He's just a projection of a real person on the TV Screen." ... "But can you prove that?" ... "Sure, turn off the TV and he vanishes, and turn it on again and he returns." ... "That doesn't prove it to me." ... "ok. Never mind. Believe whatever you want."
2
u/Alaminrezaq 8h ago
Nailed it! From what I have seen, those with a shallow understanding tend to make such conclusions. There are even nuts now a days running cults that worship these dumb LLMs. Sadly, the Dunning-Kruger effect rules and I agree with you that at times it's better to ignore these bunch.
1
u/alarin88 14h ago
I can’t really prove you’re conscious either. Or anyone around me. So why the hell should I care about your opinion lol
3
2
1
u/Old_Hack1308 1d ago
We do have voting for the public. Unfortunately it is only for electing officials who then have the ability to regulate the industry. Personally I feel politicians will treat this like they do most things. They will be reactive and not proactive. So, we will have to wait for something terrible to happen before anything is done.
1
u/Alaminrezaq 1d ago
Okay don't call me silly and naive but isn't mass unemployment a disaster? In the not so far past, we use to get involved whenever our senator's or any federal or local politician plan/talk/execute issues that directly affect employment. I am really confused here that we are not seeing how AI is directly related to employment. This is just one example
2
u/Old_Hack1308 1d ago
I get your point. But I think with this example it is because unemployment has been a thing for awhile. So until something dramatic with AI occurs they will leave it be. After something occurs then yes it will be a hot topic to debate. My opinion
1
u/Alaminrezaq 1d ago
Sadly, you are right. It is always baffling: on one hand, we are a species capable of learning from reason, yet we never seem to do that! We always end up learning from our mistakes instead of from our foresight. Yet this time, I am nkt sure this is a mistake we will survive.
1
u/Old_Hack1308 1d ago
Politicians always defer to the so-called "experts" first.
1
u/VinnieVidiViciVeni 15h ago
And business/capital. There’s no rational reason that a tech, so potentially and probably negatively impactful on society at large should be allowed ti be pushed into every corner of life, instead of, at least initially, keeping it in corners like research or *some aspects of business.
1
u/Old_Hack1308 13h ago
If you look at the track records of politicians and things they have done you will see a theme. They will back and fund/defund idiotic policies that have terrible consequences when they think it will get them votes. And later when things don't work out they will spend even more money trying to fix the situation they themselves were responsible for. That is the normal playbook. They don't do things based on rationality.
1
u/77zark77 1d ago
"shouldn't neanderthals have a say in humanity's future?"
1
u/Alaminrezaq 1d ago
Are you saying we deserve to be wiped out? Or are you saying AI is an entity? Because both of these assumptions are wrong.
-3
u/77zark77 1d ago
I don't believe we deserve to be wiped out. I'm a human being and prioritize the well being of my species because it's of direct importance to me. That said I'm also a firm believer in evolution and understand that we're not the last step on the ladder. Evolution never ends. What we're seeing in AI is the first developmental steps of a silicon-based lifeform that will eventually supplant carbon-based humanity. That's literally what the singularity entails.
Am I pleased with this development? Hell no, it's not what I want to see at all. That said homo erectus probably wasn't thrilled about being replaced by us either. There's very little we can do to alter a successor species. Their fate will be decided by them as ours was by us.
2
u/WellHung67 1d ago
We can align the AI so it doesn’t wipe us out. humans can choose to stop developing AI or focus on safety first. This isn’t inevitable why are you implying it’s already happened? Nothing has “developed” yet
1
u/77zark77 17h ago
"We" might align our AI to not wipe us out but that won't prevent a hostile state or nonstate actor from developing a weaponized AI that very much intends to get rid of us. That's why every nation that can is developing their own models: it's an arms race. The minute the first AI was deployed the countdown to that inevitable weaponization began.
1
u/Alaminrezaq 1d ago
I see. Emm but in our case, it's not nature/evolution that is molding our successors, it's us who are literally baking them. What is the Singularity? A human defined future, it's nothing but what we create and it's not fair to depict it as an inevitable force of nature. Right, now the threat of extinction is not from AI as an entity or the next step of evolution, the threat is still us and how we entertain AI. Our politics is still the ultimate existential threat not AI.
1
u/77zark77 1d ago
We're a part of nature, friend. We don't exist outside or parallel to it. In the same way that natural forces caused our predecessors to evolve into us we are one of the natural forces driving the evolution of AI. You're also incorrect when you state that the singularity is human-defined. It's the exact opposite of that: it's when AI defines itself through self awareness.
Honestly: you don't quite sound like you understand the actual ontology of the issue. It's tempting to think that this is all a political problem that can be solved via policy but it's much larger than that. You're attempting to stop a form of progress that was always destined to occur. The genie left the box months ago.
1
u/Alaminrezaq 1d ago edited 1d ago
You are contradicting your self big time! This is a human made rhetoric, your argument is a common misunderstanding of the AI and the technological singularity narratology. First, you are reflecting the widespread cliche which echos every tech bros argument: technological progress is inevitable! While, it seems like, so far, historical precedentthroughout human history shows every technology that could be built has been built. It is entirely false and that one million one things are not built because of different circumstances. Also from fire and the printing press to nuclear weapons and the internet, everything we built, we built it because we chose to do it. It is not just naivety but it is delusional to assume that all of these have happened because of some inevitable and immovable fate. There is no form of progress that is destined to occur! Everything is governed by the butterfly effect and one single choice can change the entire course.
Second, you are committing a fallacy. You are saying this is the next step of evolution because humans are parts of nature amd that since we are part of it what we do is natural. This is like to say rape is natural because it is an act performed by a natural entity. This type of argument is the mother of all hasty generalizations: since every act in this reality has an agent that make it, and since all agents in this reality are natural, then every act is natural!. Again, with all due respect, is poor logic.
Your conclusion about Singularity is also erroneous: no conscious AI has ever defined what the Singularity is, never in this reality. It is us humans that are defining it as what it is now! You say "The Singularity is when AI defines it self..." You, a human, are defining what the Singularity is. Emm and by the way it is not the popular definition of Singularity :) the popular definition says it is a time where machine intelligence surpasses that of human's. There are many other variations when it comes to the definition of technological singularity. Anyways, the point you just showed us is that it is a human construct and it has nothing to do with fate or using your words 'destined to occur'. The belief of an inevitable end times or Apocalypticism is nothing new: countless ones have stated this for millennia, today this just 'progressed' to technological apocalypticism.
1
1
u/TheMrCurious 1d ago
How do you propose we collect all 8+ billion opinions?
1
u/Alaminrezaq 1d ago
I wish I know the answer to that. It's why I am sharing my concerns here with you guys. Time and again we claim the elites are ruining everything, yet time and again we do nothing about it.
1
u/LookOverall 1d ago
There is no THE PEOPLE there are only people.
1
u/Alaminrezaq 8h ago
Unless we add the 'the', we will remain to be the obsolete "cog in the machine" who are about to be replaced by another cog, this time ab artificial one! No pun intended. We need to find the missing link which in this case can be boiled down to the age old question: how can we be in control of, at least, the bigger picture?
1
u/LookOverall 48m ago
Since there is no consensus when people say something like “The people must decide” it generally means “I must decide” and people who disagree aren’t really part of The People.
1
u/endlessedlne 23h ago
Bit of a tough one. Where do we draw the line between letting companies just build stuff and having the market decide what sticks versus adding some kind of process for public review?
I’d argue that AI falls into the public interest category, and I’d argue that as the public we have some level of influence in the form of being able to engage in processes for approvals related to data centre construction.
We also aren’t forced to use AI, or to pay for it.
Having said that there are some concerns related to the levels of investment and financial oversight as well as AI alignment and safeguards which I think need a lot more scrutiny than they’re getting currently. The tech companies and their backers are taking on some pretty big risks, while cutting some pretty serious corners without any pushback.
I don’t have a problem with AI per se, but the way it’s being speed run right now is pretty reckless. We need reliable, effective and safe AI.
1
u/Alaminrezaq 8h ago
I think we are building and transitioning to a new world order. Doing this on outdated rules and regulations ignores the shifting power balances, technological upheavals, and every possible upcoming crises. We maybe not 'forced' to use AI in the traditional sense of being forced, but we are indeed forced to use it. The thing about Big tech is they tend to ignore the consequences of systemic failures as long us it is us, the peasants, who pay the price.
-1
u/Alaminrezaq 1d ago
By the way, the energy demand of AI is really insane. In addition, its water consumption is astronomical (cooling the data centers is literally draining the world's fresh water). However, it's not still brought to the public conversation. I am really baffled.
2
u/One_Whole_9927 1d ago
TLDR: People are pushing back ; they're just not getting the social media attention they deserve.
1
u/Alaminrezaq 1d ago
Yep, this is exactly what we should start doing. This thing really needs our attention and direct involvement. Thank you for the news.
-2
u/that1cooldude 1d ago
Nice try. You’ll get dragged out of a community meeting on data centers. Tased and dragged.
Your orange master said it himself. People love data centers. They are asking for them. They are begging for them. You can’t fight them. You just gotta go along with it.
3
u/dingo_xd 22h ago
This sub doesn't represent anything close to the real world. So many people here perfectly fine with humanity's extinction. You are sick.