Comment Re:Not banned but not allowed either (Score 1) 120
> There have been many times in past humankind where populations have chosen what makes the day-to-day easier or more productive, despite it clearly being wrong - is AI one of these situations?
I asked Google AI, and this was its response:
Historically, humanity has frequently embraced convenient or productive technologies -- such as fossil fuels, industrial agriculture, and single-use plastics -- only to face severe long-term environmental, social, or ethical consequences. Whether artificial intelligence belongs in this category is a subject of intense debate among ethicists, scientists, and policymakers.
Arguments that AI parallels these past mistakes focus on its hidden, deferred costs. Critics point to the massive environmental footprint of training large language models, which requires immense amounts of water and electricity. Socially, the immediate productivity gains of AI risk causing widespread job displacement, worsening wealth inequality, and eroding human cognitive reliance. Additionally, the algorithmic spread of misinformation and the potential loss of human agency over critical decisions echo past instances where short-term efficiency compromised long-term societal well-being.
Conversely, proponents argue that AI is fundamentally different because it can actively help solve humanity's most complex existential crises. Unlike passive technologies that merely deplete resources, AI is being deployed to optimize clean energy grids, discover new materials for carbon capture, and accelerate breakthroughs in medicine and agriculture. From this perspective, the technology is not inherently "wrong," but rather a powerful tool whose ultimate impact depends entirely on global regulation, ethical guardrails, and intentional alignment with human values.
