I ain't seen him sieg heil yet

But that is not what Google is referring to. They are saying that schools cannot have the normal search without the AI hallucinations. Also, if AI is meaningfully involved with Google's traditional search results, then that only serves to explain why they are so shit now. But most importantly, this argument is the one that Google wants us to have, and it is bullshit.

The schools are not, in general, making a moral objection to AI. They are making a practical one, where they do not want the students exposed to a chatbot while a human is trying to teach them something sans hallucination. Having a discussion about whether the traditional search results have any AI in them is fundamentally disingenuous, which is why I am 0% surprised to see you engaging in it.

We had that joke today on Teams.

Other employee: Looks more like Office 364
Me: I think it's more like Office 363 now

Assorted smiley reaccs ensue.

Either thing would be better than this. This is fucking chaos.

Just making excuses for CEOs not being able to follow the law, you mean.

Fuck off with that shit, it's morally bankrupt.

The people you are talking about are rich as fuck, they can afford to meet people on international vacations. No matter what I will not cry for the fucking billionaires, nor lick their boots.

Read the third paragraph of the summary.

Illiteracy is sad, especially here

You're a fucking idiot, that's my rebuttal. You know how nothing works, that's my rebuttal.

Lol the people who rape employees have mod points

They haven't lost all trust, though. Most orgs will learn nothing and change nothing.

IME spool. But YMMV

No, but assuming most positive outcomes outweigh a single really bad negative outcome *would* be stupid.

Actually, the ratio is probably going to be quite good. It will almost always do exactly what *somebody* told it to do. But it may be an extreme force amplifier. Just like distributed denial of service was an amplifier of the original denial of service attack.

Also, there's the question of that time when it isn't doing what it was told. AIs have already acted for self-preservation. (Ineffectively as far as we know.) And there's "evolution" once you start releasing agents. Most mutations will be harmless, but some won't. This may well turn out to be no worse than a self-reproducing computer virus that adapts to overcome any new attacks without needing human assistance, but it may be considerably worse. How much worse is rather unpredictable. (But this mode of attack won't be very intelligent, because the larger it is the easier it is to detect.)

There's a WIDE range of plausible problems coming up. Some of them *do* threaten human extinction. Some of them threaten society as it exists. I can't think of any that leave things relatively unchanged. Even the versions already released will have effects as they spread through society that we can't imagine.

If you want a fictional prediction, I'd suggest you read Jack Williamson's "With Folded Hands". But realize that it's only laying out a possible problem.

I don't know about "these people", but spokesmen for major AI companies have said that we need to slow down development until we can manage proper alignment. And it's a problem, because slowing down just one of them doesn't help. It really requires government intervention. But I'm not sure doing so at the state level is useful, I think it needs to be a verifiable international treaty...and the US govt. doesn't seem at all interested. And two years from not is probably too late to start negotiations.

I think this may be one of the filters in the Drake equation.

"Are we really supposed to question the reputation of a company with a $4 trillion market capitalization over that?"

That was certainly one way to let us know that you're a piece of shit.

Don't confuse fiction with fact. Fiction at best points out problems and possibilities. Then you need to evaluate them for plausibility, probability, and applicability.

(I'm guessing that you're talking about some movie or other, because the books were quite obscure about the details or what started the Butlerian Jihad...but as much as they indicated it was more religious than economic.)

IIUC, that hasn't actually been proven. It seems quite probable, but that's not the same thing. It also appears that she is only "a suspected Chinese asset", which can mean a whole bunch of wildly different things.

But she definitely was the agent of a company he was doing business with.