I don’t think AI can do either of those things (okay, maybe it can do the second one by accelerating climate change and damaging children’s ability to learn, but not by hacking its way into missile silos), and frankly, I’m not convinced that either of those people actually believe it can.
Ai can’t cure cancer.
I think what’s meant here is (help) find a cure, which is very much what its use should be restricted to at this stage.
I mean machine learning has been and is currently being used in science research.
It has its value there.
Don’t need big data centers for it. It can be done locally on computers with decent hardware.
Ai (and the data centers they require) that are being used to make knock off art and slop , and mass survey and manipulate the public is definitely not needed.
A lot of pro AI arguments are that “it could cure cancer”. But not really. And although machine learning and statistic calculations are used in scientific research, including cancer research, these things are done locally. Not through data centers. Not through big companies.
A lot of researchers use a program called “R”. It’s a statistical software that can be programmed to do anything really. Including machine learning. And it’s open source.
So we already have the “AI” tools for research. OpenAi, palantir, or any of those other companies do not offer better options to R. They like to pretend they could magically solve so many problems. If they wanted. If they only had more money. More data centers.
But the truth is they couldn’t. If ai could solve these things at the snap of the fingers, it would have already happened because scientists have been using sophisticated statistics in research for literally half a century at this point.
And have had the hardware to run highly sophisticated stats for at least 20 years.
these two buttons are in like different countries
Plot twist: They’re the same button.
Humans are the cancer… eliminate the humans and there won’t be anymore cancer.
Whoa there agent Smith
Eco fascism is craaazy
