Red Mosquito

I think you're confusing good/bad with good/evil (the last one doesn't exist in any objective sense).

I don't think intent matters at all. It's another unknowable anyway. If the drone isn't bad because it was programmed to kill, then one could also say that the programmer wasn't bad either because he never had any choice to program the drone. It's what his programming dictated as well. And so on up the causal chain to infinity.

Whether you are talking about a tornado or an ax murderer, one doesn't need intent to know to stay out of their way.

BurtReynolds wrote:

I laughed

If a person intentionally goes around punching people in the face because he hates people and wants them to feel pain, you lock him away in prison. If it's because he has uncontrollable body movements, you don't send him to prison. That's why intentions matter. The first person is bad, the second one isn't necessarily. But as you say, it's good to know this person is punching people in order to avoid getting punched.

They're both bad, but neither are evil (because evil doesn't exist). How I deal with one would be different from the other, sure.

"Motivations" might be a better word than "intent", which implies choice, which we agree nothing has. But what does that have to do with AI? I don't need to know if the killer automated drone intends to kill me or not to know if it's bad for me. I just need to stop it.

BurtReynolds wrote:They're both bad, but neither are evil (because evil doesn't exist). How I deal with one would be different from the other, sure.

"Motivations" might be a better word than "intent", which implies choice, which we agree nothing has. But what does that have to do with AI? I don't need to know if the killer automated drone intends to kill me or not to know if it's bad for me. I just need to stop it.

We agree we're talking about subjective "badness"; something is bad when it's harmful to humans. Something or someone is evil when it actively intends harm to humans, when its motive is to cause humans pain and suffering. Nothing is objectively bad or evil.

From an ant's perspective, humans are not evil because we destroy ants when building things or walking around and stomping on them without even thinking about it, but we're definitely bad for ants. Our interests are simply misaligned with ants' interests.

It matters because if AI is evil nothing can be done. If its interests are misaligned with ours, there's hope.

Not worried

https://www.globalnerdy.com/2023/05/04/ ... el-phones/

It’s bad. I see it in school in all the ways you can imagine. Where it really bothers me is when they use it in a way that doesn’t register as cheating to them.

My top class writes a lot, and I make them do in-class essays as often as I can because they’ll otherwise use Grammarly to essentially change their entire paper. This isn’t spellcheck. It’s more like they know how to draw a stick figure of a woman, and they take that drawing, run it through AI, and hand me a Mona Lisa, albeit with a wonky eye and fucked up hands.

The part that bothers me the most isn’t that they tried to cheat. It isn’t that they aren’t developing any critical thinking skills or their own writing voice either. It’s that they honestly identify that manipulated product as their own work. That mindset scares the shit out of me.

I love when older people i work with think they are tech advanced for using chat gpt but they use it like Google. They’re basically using it as a search engine

BurtReynolds wrote:They're both bad, but neither are evil (because evil doesn't exist). How I deal with one would be different from the other, sure.

"Motivations" might be a better word than "intent", which implies choice, which we agree nothing has. But what does that have to do with AI? I don't need to know if the killer automated drone intends to kill me or not to know if it's bad for me. I just need to stop it.

does good exist?

i am pretty sure evil exists whether you agree with it or not.

are child rapists and child murders not evil because they are misunderstood?

daft twat wrote:It’s bad. I see it in school in all the ways you can imagine. Where it really bothers me is when they use it in a way that doesn’t register as cheating to them.

My top class writes a lot, and I make them do in-class essays as often as I can because they’ll otherwise use Grammarly to essentially change their entire paper. This isn’t spellcheck. It’s more like they know how to draw a stick figure of a woman, and they take that drawing, run it through AI, and hand me a Mona Lisa, albeit with a wonky eye and fucked up hands.

The part that bothers me the most isn’t that they tried to cheat. It isn’t that they aren’t developing any critical thinking skills or their own writing voice either. It’s that they honestly identify that manipulated product as their own work. That mindset scares the shit out of me.

Something something you won’t have a calculator in your pocket when you’re an adult.

it seems to be prematurely implemented everywhere disguised as a helpful tool, when its just another way to collect user data.

Thing is, it is useful in a lot of ways (which is why it's potentially dangerous, or why it will make us dumber). Like, I've heard people complain about it being integrated into Google, but tbh, it is usually very accurate and much better than Google's search without it. This probably says more about how bad Google search has gotten, but still.

I hope I never end up learning anything about AI

It's the punning of computer stuff

lennytheweedwhacker wrote:It's the punning of computer stuff

lol definitely

Dev wrote:

lennytheweedwhacker wrote:It's the punning of computer stuff

lol definitely

Good and wholesome?

AI Am Mine

Yeah, AAaaaaa IIiiii
want to travel south this year...


Wait wrong band.

Copilate

imagine how many dogshit selfies PHATJ has generated with AI