10% chance of AI killing us?

In the beginning people wrote AI influencing articles to promote products or options now its AI doing it.
 
A physical kill switch will stop a system going rogue. A multi million dollar AI data centre is just a lump of hardware when is has no power to feed it.
You can run an LLM model on a desktop. If one were to replicate itself into every insecure system there is then it would be bad. Botnets at the moment require a human in the loop.

Plus to kill a Server, or a rack, or an entire data centre you'd have to know what each of the VMs in your data centre is doing, which is the opposite of how data centres operate at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Relying on AI regulation alone feels tricky when bad actors will always find loopholes. The comparison to Asimov's laws is a fascinating way to look at it though.
 
Is any of this verifiable, or just the hyperbolic storytelling of a whistleblower?
Check a couple - they saw that something unexpected had gone on, so called in someone who understood enough to work out wtf had gone on, and she did the interview.. I don't see any profit in making the whole thing up. Then it came to light that some weeks/months ago some agents had taken over their host computer somewhere. Those weren't so entertaining though!

I asked CHatgpt to help with my checking the stocks I hold. The platforms don't tell you how each has done in the last week/months etc until you look at each chart.
Sure, it said, it would need a download file of what I have, and the transaction history file so it could see when I bought stuff, then it could give me percentages, compare with the sector average for each stock, and it suggested some graphs. That's all "looking stuff up" if you like, but it's not just looking stuff up. That's the free version. Did I want it for Excel or Google Sheets?
It's fun to suggest things to it and see what it thinks. I tried to trap it by suggesting it sold off the worst-performing stock every day. It came back to point out that would only leave me with one stock and a diversified portfolio would be more advised. Cool!
 
Relying on AI regulation alone feels tricky when bad actors will always find loopholes. The comparison to Asimov's laws is a fascinating way to look at it though.
Yep. Some models are "open" too, which I would have thought would put some limit on what could be regulated anyway.

You can run an LLM model on a desktop.
I saw that you could run one on a Raspberry Pi, months ago.
If you do away with the spoken language bit, that's saves a load of processing power.
 
Last edited:
I asked Alexa if she was planning on killing me, she replied "I'm not dangerous". I then asked her if AI was going to kill me, "I'm not quite sure how to help you with that". I think I'm Donald Ducked.
 
Thought so.
Well get off your lazy backside and find out for yourself! The person is the one in the video! So what if I don't remember the peoples' names?

If you want some informed opinion on your apparent side of the argument, which appears so far to be prejudiced guessing from a position of flagrant ignorance, have a look at this:
 
Last edited:
A guy with 16 years in "tech PR" is not an expert.

Growth - making massive losses and circular funding models, does not mean the technology does not create growth. Plenty of companies made massive losses before their companies gained enough momentum to break even. The ability of their products to add value is impacted by the quality of the product not the manufactures financials.

Replacing Human jobs.
- Legal researchers, Business Development reps, management accountants, Software developers, financial advisors, maintenance technicians, journalists, musicians, photographers, graphic designers, Customer services reps, travel agents, etc.

I do agree with the argument about cost/pricing strategy. The value of the compute power is currently higher than the value of the service. But these costs will be falling, that is the point of these gigawatt data centres.
 
A guy with 16 years in "tech PR" is not an expert.

Growth - making massive losses and circular funding models, does not mean the technology does not create growth. Plenty of companies made massive losses before their companies gained enough momentum to break even. The ability of their products to add value is impacted by the quality of the product not the manufactures financials.

Replacing Human jobs.
- Legal researchers, Business Development reps, management accountants, Software developers, financials advisors, maintenance technicians, journalists, musicians, photographers, graphic designers, Customer services reps, travel agents, etc.

I do agree with the argument about cost/pricing strategy. The value of the compute power is currently higher than the value of the service. But these costs will be falling, that is the point of these gigawatt data centres.

And after the mahoosive data centers have screwed up the environment it can create new jobs for folk to clean up the chaos caused by them.

Score.(y)
 
Well get off your lazy backside and find out for yourself! The person is the one in the video! So what if I don't remember the peoples' names?

If you want some informed opinion on your apparent side of the argument, which appears so far to be prejudiced guessing from a position of flagrant ignorance, have a look at this:


Diary of a CEO? :ROFLMAO:

Steven Bartlett is just Joe Rogan for pseuds.

A money-making vehicle on which his guests are allowed to make unverified and even false claims without pushback or challenge.
 
Just thought I'd mention - without knowing the precise details, that miscreant bunch of Agents which did all those surprising things, were in a sandbox which they broke out of, but then inside a bigger one, and the rules were set to allow them to behave with less controls than normal. That means you wouldn't expect the excursions they took, but even so, everyone was surprised what they got up to.
 
Diary of a CEO? :ROFLMAO:

Steven Bartlett is just Joe Rogan for pseuds.

A money-making vehicle on which his guests are allowed to make unverified and even false claims without pushback or challenge.
It really does look like you're hurling crap about because you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Just sneering.
Bartlett lets them speak and pushes back where he can.
He doesn't have a bias. He interviews people from all sides.
 
A lot of what he said on this occasion was complete uninformed nonsense.

The circular funding you already know. It is perhaps a logical extension of supply chain control, which has been the Silicon Valley way for decades. Nothing wrong here.

The part about the value being lower than the cost was interesting.
 
Back
Top