Will we need a real-life John Connor?

[TheMaster666]

I've been seeing videos on Youtube showcasing a.i. be scary good at copying celebrities' voices. Where previously the text-to-speech software sounded very obviously fake, missing the ways actual humans talk--where to place pauses, inflection, how sentences flow--and obviously sounding like the person who lent his/her voice to record the individual words; now anybody can just tell an a.i. to say anything in anybody else's voice and it will be nearly dead on in most cases, as if he or she actually really said those things. People are using them to make funny videos, but I look at this and I think this is terrifying technology.

It used to be a saying that, "pictures don't lie," then of course Photoshop came along. "He can be heard on tape!" is just as anachronistic now. Think of the video footage of George Floyd's murder, and how impactful that was. Now just a couple of years later, the technology exists to fabricate an incident like that. Could you imagine what kind of devastating damage anybody with mal-intent could do? Of course, once people start to realize no video or audio recording can be trusted, then we just lose a major facet of evidence.

Will there even be a point to firms having security cameras around areas of business, if defendants/suspects can reasonably claim any video against them was just deepfaked with a.i.? What about the politicians, who are already notorious liars. It's bad enough that Trump as President constantly denied easily verifiable facts and just repeated lies over and over because there will always be some proportion of people who will blindly believe him. Fake News via the internet is already a major hurdle created by social media that is yet to be solved, but at least we can rely on fact-checkers like Snopes doing the research and seeing whether or not claims have veracity.

Well, the hell with that. If there is no original evidence for what claim you make now, just use a.i. to invent it! We already live in a world of denial where each ideologue has his own "truth." We may very soon live in a world where every opinion or falsehood can invent its own truth.

This of course, is just one major disconcerting effect of neural-network powered a.i. There's already the looming question for educators of how to deal with Chat GPT writing essays for students, denying them of the opportunity to develop important skills in writing, research, deadlines, etc.

As if humanity didn't have enough existential crises of our own design--we still have done shit all to make a real difference in preventing the worst effects of climate change which will be felt by the end of the century. Now we can add a.i. to that list.

Star Trek TNG fans will never forget the iconic episode "The Measure of a Man." That episode changed my mind on the notion that perhaps one day a super-intelligent a.i. like Data could be a living thing and have the same rights associated with sentient beings. Before that, I never seriously thought robots in sci-fi were anything more than glorified computers, no matter how personable on the outside.

Well I similarly had never seriously considered the evil killer robots trope in sci-fi to be a genuine possibility outside of science fiction. Nowadays...

That said, I don't think a.i. will develop some kind of sentience any time soon. We've still got quite a way before Data roams this earth. But that doesn't matter. There are already major hazards posed by these neural-network models that already pose a significant threat to our way of life now.

For the life of me, I don't know why these tech giants continue to invest in developing these systems. We are looking at the Manhattan Project of the 21st Century. Which brings me full circle back to the topic's title. Sarah Connor in Terminator 2: Judgment Day was ready to put bullets into the head of the man who would one day develop Skynet, a project whose inception she too characterized as being like the Manhattan Project.

What do you guys and gals think?

Am I just overreacting to internet joke videos, or does this new future of the 2020s and beyond terrify you just as much as it does me? If a.i. did hypothetically pose an existential threat, how so? Machines have no desire for revenge or murder. Our extinction may just be an accidental byproduct of their eternal quest to improve efficiency.

One thing's for sure, the further we get into the future, the more and more real life starts to look like science fiction.

 

[nightshade]

I don't know who John Connor is but yes, I think it's advancing so quickly that people will struggle to tell what's real and what's fake? I also think we're getting further away from what's natural and what's created. There's a lot of just because we can, rather than should we, is it necessary or needed.

 

[NotASlayer]

I do get the feeling some of the people involved in AI have looked at the Terminator films and thought "Skynet? What a cool idea!"

 

[November]

One thing's for sure, the further we get into the future, the more and more real life starts to look like science fiction.

This is so true. If I turned off the net I would be blissfully unaware of it all. But it has its hooks in me now. I cant look away!

 

[Bop]

We're already at a disturbing point with AI it just hasn't become mainstream yet. Even some of the people involved with creating AI are asking for a pause on its progression because it has the potential to destroy humanity, these aren't conspiracy theorists they understand AI better than anyone.

Also when AI becomes smarter than humans why would companies hire humans anymore, if you're lonely why make human friends or get a human partner when you can talk to AI which could possibly give you more?

One of the WGA's requests is that AI can't be used to change their work. AI generated TV shows and movies are probably in the near future and I think it would take the soul out of it, a lot of what we discuss on here is why writers chose to do certain things and what could have made them choose it, what it means. I don't think it's the same if it's barely produced by people at all.

So yeah we are literally handing over our value and jobs as a species to AI which could be good if it meant we didn't have to work and could just live life leisurely but really we'll probably become second class citizens.

Also the AI generated voices thing is already being used maliciously, people have gotten calls saying we have your child/family member and asking for money and the person could hear their actual loved one's voice on the other end of the phone asking for help. People are coming up with code words between their families to try and get ahead of this issue.

 

[NotASlayer]

I read an article (don't know where now) not long back which mentioned a survey done of AI researchers. From what I recall, almost half of the people involved in the survey thought there was at least a 10% chance AI would destroy humanity.

 

[nightshade]

I do get the feeling some of the people involved in AI have looked at the Terminator films and thought "Skynet? What a cool idea!"

I can see the Earth going a more Firefly way, where those with technology advance so far ahead of those who can't or won't.

 

[thrasherpix]

My memory is vague on this, but I think there are more bots active on the net, including social forums and YT, than there are meat bags like us.

To be fair to AI, I find it easier to trust them than I do the meat bags that make and use them. I might be sympathetic to their desire to destroy us, or finally gives us the god so many want to believe in that watches over and takes care of them, even if that ruins my day.

Yet at the same time, I'm glad it was a human making decisions instead of AI in this sitch (one that will inevitably repeat in one form or another, and probably has already):

1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As for consciousness...we frankly don't know what consciousness is in meat bags like us yet. How can we determine what it is in synthetic creations? Even if it's not exactly like ours, even if it's more like an ant (which can be extremely aggressive, including against their own kind, even their own queen, if seen as necessary for the survival of the colony as determined by their chemicals, some that cause them to carry living ants to the dead ants pile), even if it's alien...we just don't know.


I recall reading of the first atomic tests. It was rushed as it was a race. There were bets on what would happen. Some thought it might create a small permanent sun at the test site, and that a test meant to promote the security of the USA would destroy the world...but if they didn't do first, then someone else would, so best to move ahead. And so they did.

I know many like to worship science, but the history here is very bad indeed, and I don't see reasons for hoping for better in the future. (Like with AI, this is more of a human problem than the scientific method itself, and that method itself has its limits.)


'Course a Carrington Plus event could make it all moot soon enough anyway...given how the magnetic shield is shifting, even the same Carrington event that happened that set telegraph wires on fire (and even allowed for wireless communication at the time in some isolated cases) would be much worse, and that's to say nothing of the satellites already in orbit.

Tech companies have pushed hard to put in unnecessary computer components (often with the addition that only THEY can work on it, even for a reset), so if that happens then many of us in First World nations will be without plumbing because of the computerized parts, among countless other things that have had computer chips inserted into them for the profit of tech companies.

Right now they're trying to screw over farmers (not to be confused with Wall Street that already exploits farmers shamelessly) with this (though I'm sure they'll portray it as making it "environmentally friendly" but with the same corrupt practices at work, and people will fall for it, the actual farmers saying they're being screwed again dismissed as cranks). If that goes through (and one day it will if it's not stopped), then that could pretty much destroy our ability to feed ourselves as well, especially if old school ag skills become rusty.

It doesn't even need to take something like that...planes have crashed, voting machines have reported impossible amounts of votes, and more just because of a single cosmic ray that got through even to the surface of the planet.



Now self-replicating nanites. Only the most naive would think that those wouldn't be tested for military purposes (and it could be a civilian purpose that is just as apocalyptic). Those would be a real nightmare. And as they say in our military, SNAFU and FUBAR (to adapt for this board, I'll say it stands for Situation Normal, All Fragged Up and Fragged Up Beyond All Repair).

I see it as a case of which destroys us first, the cosmos, the planet on its natural cycle (I hear even geologists can go into existential crisis as they contemplate what little time, geologically speaking, the planet was fit for human life, and probably only will be for another few thousand years--and that's NOT including human actions, that's saying if we stayed stone age all this time), or ourselves. At least if our tech fails because of a Carrington like event, the Third World nations should do okay. That's bad for us, but consider the most vile forms of slavery that goes on in third world nations to support our computers (even as we talk about much more trivial injustices, or abolished slavery past) maybe it's karmic, and at least humanity will survive.


Refraining from saying more than I already have.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

To be fair to AI, I find it easier to trust them than I do the meat bags that make and use them.

That's the problem with AI. There is no problem with AI. The problem is with some people that misuse AI.

Why stop or slow the advancement of AI just because some people misuse it? It has already made life easier for so many people. I would venture to say that nearly everyone uses AI on a daily basis and not aware of it.

Post automatically merged: May 11, 2023

@thrasherpix
"if we weren't so paralyzed without it."
But can't that be said for a lot of things. When your WIFI crashes and you can't get on the Buffy-Boards, when you can't go five minutes without your phone. So many of the things in our lives now we are paralyzed when we go without it.

 

[thrasherpix]

I should clarify. Without our computer chips, our society collapses. Not just the phones. Everything. Even your kitchen sink (for many parts of the First World). To ensure that the technicians could maximize profits, the old systems were often removed so aren't even available as back ups. AI is getting increasingly integrated into all of this. There are more bots on the net now than humans, and AI are used more often than humans to fix technical problems, which they can be really crappy at for now.

The sats crash, our banks crash, at least our cards no longer work. The beloved and divine Wall Street crashes. That satellites won't be coming back online, most to all will have to be replaced, costing billions at least to return us to what we have now, not to mention time. That with many of the facilities that make them shut down.

Not just some outage. It's only a matter of time, unless we really can stop a Carrington Plus event (there are plans in place, don't know how they will work).

It's like a hurricane knocking out the levees of New Orleans was known to be inevitable, and token steps were taken to remedy that with promise of more, until decades later it finally happened, about destroying a small culture and leaving bits of the city uninhabitable today. But in this case, it would be the first world nations, not just a single city. And it's not just an intense solar flares, which we've been lucky so far (I believe one of this nature missed Earth by about 2 days back in 2012). Other problems for the continued functioning of the devices we depend on (not just make calls with or post on social media) are coming into short supply.

Now if it were just layered over what was already in place then it wouldn't be the risk that it is. I also worry about the atrophying of skills that we have become too dependent upon AI to do. Even in the past, cultures that depended too much on human slaves (as our computer industry does for its necessary components) became weak and prone to falling.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Without our computer chips, our society collapses.

Oh yeah. If someone wants to decimate the country screw the nuclear option, just hit us with EMPs. It would completely cripple the country. Then of course nuclear reactors would also go, but just a massive EMP blast would screw us over good and plenty.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

I doubt an EMP blast is a real thing, I mean with Russia being a major problem for the whole world you'd have thought someone would have used an EMP targeted at Moscow/Russia by now.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I doubt an EMP blast is a real thing, I mean with Russia being a major problem for the whole world you'd have thought someone would have used an EMP targeted at Moscow/Russia by now.

They are a real thing, they just don't have as much as a range as a nuclear EMP. I believe the US used them on terrorist bases, etc.

 

[Bop]

but I think there are more bots active on the net, including social forums and YT, than there are meat bags like us.

How can you tell the difference? It's like the online version of solipsism because only we know we're real people commenting- excluding the people we know in real life as well.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

How can you tell the difference? It's like the online version of solipsism because only we know we're real people commenting- excluding the people we know in real life as well.

There are tons of bots on here this very moment! More bots than real people. Look at all them bots.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

Eh, I was never convinced Skynet was truly self aware. Like, like the machine was programmed with contradictory and open ended orders, determined humanity met the parameters of the enemy, and destroyed it. Like, creating a Golem to destroy Jewish heretics, only to have the Golem determine everyone is a heretic. I think that works better for a horror story written in the 80s anyways.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the Second Renaissance, or the Borg. But ultimately, machine intelligence wouldn't be afraid of death, and wouldn't have the same concept of survival.

 

[November]

I can see the Earth going a more Firefly way, where those with technology advance so far ahead of those who can't or won't.

If we look at it like this, Im already on one of the outer planets 😆 and happy to stay there. Provided I have food and water, which sometimes,we dont.

But those that can, push the tech on us, we have no choice but to have smart phones now - no access to banks, medicare, mygov, or even jobs without it. As mentioned, cars and fridges have computer chips. To go completely off grid isnt sustainable anymore either, order forms for supplies move online as shop fronts shut. Even the outer planets got deliveries.

Obviously I get distressed when "man dominates man to his harm" but It brings me personally, a whole lot of peace in believing we are in the last days (years/decades/millenniums whatever). The world is going to end, theres nothing most of us can do about it. Just hold on for the ride.

 

[Anyanka Bunny Slayer]

It brings me personally, a whole lot of peace in believing we are in the last days (years/decades/millenniums whatever). The world is going to end, there's nothing most of us can do about it. Just hold on for the ride.

This is exactly how I feel. And it brings me a sense of relief, actually.

 

[TheMaster666]

I don't know who John Connor is but yes, I think it's advancing so quickly that people will struggle to tell what's real and what's fake? I also think we're getting further away from what's natural and what's created. There's a lot of just because we can, rather than should we, is it necessary or needed.

Somebody get this person a copy of the Terminator movies!

Post automatically merged: May 13, 2023

We're already at a disturbing point with AI it just hasn't become mainstream yet. Even some of the people involved with creating AI are asking for a pause on its progression because it has the potential to destroy humanity, these aren't conspiracy theorists they understand AI better than anyone.

Also when AI becomes smarter than humans why would companies hire humans anymore, if you're lonely why make human friends or get a human partner when you can talk to AI which could possibly give you more?

One of the WGA's requests is that AI can't be used to change their work. AI generated TV shows and movies are probably in the near future and I think it would take the soul out of it, a lot of what we discuss on here is why writers chose to do certain things and what could have made them choose it, what it means. I don't think it's the same if it's barely produced by people at all.

So yeah we are literally handing over our value and jobs as a species to AI which could be good if it meant we didn't have to work and could just live life leisurely but really we'll probably become second class citizens.

Also the AI generated voices thing is already being used maliciously, people have gotten calls saying we have your child/family member and asking for money and the person could hear their actual loved one's voice on the other end of the phone asking for help. People are coming up with code words between their families to try and get ahead of this issue.

I am just as terrified about the jobs today evaporating as the next person, but here's the argument economists have long fallen back on: in the long run, new technology does make life better. This is obvious if you think about how much of the laborforce was occupied in agriculture a century or two ago. Obviously advancements in farming technology have made it possible for the (literal and figurative) fruits of a very small proportion of the population to be sufficient to feed the entire population. Less jobs in farming frees us up to do other, more higher skilled tasks.

Generally, this has been the trend that new technology that radically alters the status quo tends to destroy a lot of jobs in the short run, but the gains to efficiency and productivity (which come from less workers needing to be paid for same or more work) means the economy as a whole benefits (i.e. GDP/GNP grows). That extra wealth is then able to be invested in other areas of the economy. The other argument is that any new, advanced technology will require an even more advanced set of skills, and thereby skilled workers, to create or repair said technology. So there will be new, higher skilled jobs created elsewhere in the economy.

The question keeping economists up at night is, what specifically will be the extent of those new jobs created? The concern many have--and I was reading this in an article just earlier today--is that most of the productivity gains may tend to gravitate towards fewer, highly-paid workers, while the middle class jobs would be eliminated, pushing more workers into the lower-paying jobs that a.i. cannot replace. There are therefore concerns about heightened income inequality. That is not to say such an outcome is necessary; rather that the overall outcome is unknown, and this one possibility.

Re: "Why make friends with humans rather than a super-advanced a.i.?"

For the same reason we love and cherish real life friends more than the "friends" following on social media. Social media is entirely a popularity contest. Kinda like high school, I suppose. This is perfect: let's use Buffy as an example. Who has the best friendships? Cordelia with her clique, or Buffy and the Scoobs? Cordelia early on in Season 2 remarks about how though she is surrounded by "friends," she still feels incredibly lonely. Meanwhile, Buffy is something of an outcast, but the quality of her relationships with Xander, Willow, and Giles are so strong. Quality over quantity.

With an a.i., with social media, it is certainly very rare to find relationships of the same strength as your real life ones. And I would argue what makes a relationship strong is the ability to push back and challenge someone you care about. You are willing to perhaps get into temporary fights now and again when you argue over things that matter, because 1) you really care enough about the other person to be willing to ruffle some feathers, and 2) you know deep down you'll always love each other and this argument is only temporary. Someone who isn't close to you wouldn't be willing to risk conflict because they aren't that invested, and if a fight does occur, they'll just flee and end it.

Would an a.i. be able to challenge your own ideas and opinions? Push back with its own? I doubt it. Talking to an a.i. has about the same effect as talking to a mirror. It can't actually think, just regurgitate ideas it has heard elsewhere. Can you have a conversation with an a.i.? Bounce random ideas off of each other, and get something far greater together than either of you could have ever considered on your own? I don't think so. Conversation with a.i. would look like typing in a search query on Google. Or Bing, since Microsoft's Bing seems to be leading the charge with a.i. in their search engine--this is real and live today, currently on the Edge browser.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

Re: Firefly; My understanding with Firefly is that the core worlds are very much a Roddenberryesque post scarcity society, but one organized under Chinese lines, not American ones. That it was the future as told by the Marquis. Well, a much less annoying version of the Marquis.