I’ve been active in the field of AI since 2012, since the beginning of the GPGPU revolution.

I feel like many, not most, of the experts and scientists until the early stages of the GPGPU revolution and before shared a similar sentiment as what i’m stating in the title.

If asked by the public and by investors about what it’s all actually good for, most would respond with something along the lines of “idk, medicine or something? Probably climate change?” when actually, many were really just trying to make Data from TNG a reality, and many others were trying to be the first in line to receive AI immortality and other transhumanist dreams. And these are the S-Tier dinosaur savants in AI research that i’m talking about, not just the underlings. See e.g. Kurzweil and Schmidthuber.

The moment AI went commercial it all went to shit. I see AI companies sell dated methods with new compute to badly solve X, Y, Z and more things that weren’t even problems. I see countless people hate and criticize, and i can’t even complain, because for the most part, i agree with them.

I see people vastly overstate, and other people trivialize what it is and what it isn’t. There’s little inbetween, and of the people who wish AI for only its own sake, virtually none are left, save for mostly vulnerable people who’ve been manipulated into parasocial relationships with AI, and a handful of experts that face brutal consequences and opposition from all sides the moment they speak openly.

Call me an idiot for ideologically defending a technology that, in the long term, in 999999 out of 1000000 scenarios will surely harm us. But AI has been inevitable since the invention of the transistor, and all major post-commercialization mindsets steer us clear of the 1 in a million paths where we’d still be fine in 2100.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    But AI has been inevitable since the invention of the transistor

    If the thoughts and opinions of people who developed AI are irrelevant to it’s existence, why should we value their thoughts and opinions about how it’s used?

    The Manhattan project scientists were writing hand wringing op-eds; making policy suggestions; and lobbing the government basically until they died. It didn’t amount to much.

    • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Nuclear power would be a huge boon to every person on earth. Nukes having been prioritized by the powers that be doesn’t discount that.

      I don’t see any sense in discrediting the thoughts and opinions of people who advocate for nuclear power just because nukes are also a thing. So what’s the sense in discrediting the thoughts and opinions of someone who wants to use AI to detect cancers/diseases earlier than a human could, just because some capitalist shit bags are using it to soak up more money?

    • haungack@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      why should we value their thoughts and opinions about how it’s used?

      because they know shit

      The Manhattan project scientists were writing hand wringing op-eds; making policy suggestions; and lobbing the government basically until they died. It didn’t amount to much.

      touché

      I’m not really asking for change, and to be totally honest, i’m just whining about something that i know i can’t change.

      edit: the deleted reply was identical, misclicks