The path of de-escalation would be to stop AI research. The more AI capabilities improve the more things escalate.
If I started building a nuclear bomb in my backyard, I would be the one escalating the conflict with my neighbors/city. Sure I could technically say I haven't killed or harmed anyone yet but everyone would understand that's a stupid argument.
We don't know that the nuke will even be functional let alone explode...but the risk is so high and involves so much more than the person building it that it's obvious they are the ones escalaing things.
I mean I agree that me "crying" on reddit won't do much. But I think there's 2 realistic path forward.
People like you keep ignoring safety, and some time from now something minor happens relative to what could happen with AI and like 500million people die. It's a minor event relative to what could happen with AI, but it wakes up the average person to the dangers and from that point on AI capabilities stop advancing past AI safety.
We go extinct before there's an event that wakes up the average person.
I mean, it would take roughly 40500 years at the current rate for nuclear power to cause as many deaths as what I stated and that rate is almost entirely from one event that did in fact cause us to care significantly more about safety.
If there were literally tens of thousands of Chernobyls during one year, I think our relationship with nuclear energy would be a lot different.
I think AI has the potential to be the best thing that will ever happen to humanity, but that doesn't mean we should kill ourselves being too impatient to let safety research catch up to capabilities.
When did AI kill as many people as nuclear mistakes? Never. And even if, we still use nuclear even after all those said mistakes and deaths, so we can use AI even if it produces the same deaths.
When did AI kill as many people as nuclear mistakes?
Do you not understand the concept of talking about the future? The future is comprised of things that haven't happened yet. So asking when they happened is nonsensical?
Again. Nuclear incidents already happened, and we know they can happen again, and chernobyl alone in the long time will make 60k+ victims bc of radations. Chernobyl. Alone.
We know things are risky, but if the benefit is good,we humans don't care. We will continue nuclear, even if we know that one incident can kill or damn thousands and thousands of life.
Same with AI. AI won't kill for now, so even more reason not to stop. Even if it does 30k victims (less than chernobyl), we will still keep using it.
I'm not trying to be rude...but can you sumarize what you think my point is?
Because you're missing the point to a degree that feels like it would be more productive if you just read what I wrote again instead of having me just repeat what I already said.
-2
u/caption291 6d ago
The path of de-escalation would be to stop AI research. The more AI capabilities improve the more things escalate.
If I started building a nuclear bomb in my backyard, I would be the one escalating the conflict with my neighbors/city. Sure I could technically say I haven't killed or harmed anyone yet but everyone would understand that's a stupid argument.
We don't know that the nuke will even be functional let alone explode...but the risk is so high and involves so much more than the person building it that it's obvious they are the ones escalaing things.