• NotAnOtter@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    It’s a language calculator. It has no intrinsic incentive to tell the truth, it just processes words.

    There is no reason to trust AI’s reasoning on what could “save us” even if it offered one.

      • NotAnOtter@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’m not sure if there is some subtext being lost, but if your point is that we should trust AI with how to ‘save us’, then why aren’t you following it right now? It’s perfectly happy to offer an answer and it will even sound very convincing. But there is no reason to think it actually has the correct answer, or even knows what the problem is.

        • EatMyPixelDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          No, my point is that even if the AI was 100% correct and gave humanity the best advice to solve all of our problems, we still wouldn’t follow it. Because we don’t want to. We live in a society that’s broken on purpose, and a lot of people want to keep it that way, and have convinced a great many people to support things against humanity’s own interest.

          • NotAnOtter@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            If an AI was provably 100% correct then I guarantee you people would listen to it.

            People seek for god & other higher powers for much less reasonable logic than “a machine that is always correct no matter what”.

            The reality is AI as it’s known today (generative stochastic models) can not ever reach “100% correct”, by definition of being a generative stochastic model. So you’re essentially discussing a fantasy computer that we are not close to every having IRL -> It’s not relevant.