This may sound like a simple question - but doesn’t AI require electricity and data banks and cooling water to perform - and couldn’t humans destroy the infrastructure that allows machines to use their super intelligence before they can carry out destruction of the human race?
I think the problem is that by the time we get to that point we will already be utterly dependent on AI for our own survival. We are already there with digital infrastructure itself. Modern civilization could not survive without the internet. We need it for our entire finance and banking system, every company and organizations records and operations are completely digitized. We can’t “unplug” them without civilizational collapse
Well - if your choice is inefficiency without AI or the human race being wiped out by AI - I’m going be fine with humans working it out without the help of AI
It isn’t “inefficiency” without AI. We already can’t opt out of it. AI is well on its way to being not only integrated into every office and every piece of software, but writing all the code in the software itself. It’s already too late. In 10 years nobody will even know how to code without AI
Einstein said, “I can die without the help of a doctor.”
In my view, at the age of 84, humankind does not require assistance from a large language model (LLM) to bring about its own extinction. There are, indeed, individuals who are sapient and live up to their genus and species designation. But, as expected, such individuals are not driven by ego, greed, desire to rule others, racism, and other characteristics that H. sapiens seems to have an endless supply of.
It is the aggressive, loud-mouthed, criminal element in our society (e.g., the Trumps, Mussolinis, Francos, Putins, Xi Jinpings, Kims, and Hitlers that have murdered millions.
But accomplices to the above are those who remain passive, apathetic, and indifferent to the cause. And many of such accomplices have a deeper-seated belief system rooted in racism, avarice, and/or the desire to be led by an authoritarian figure. This is my explaination of the ethically-devoid Republican Congress, the MAGA supporters, and those that are employed by DHS as ICE agents, on the streets or in the concentration camps.
The clamor about AI is not without substance when one considers the unbridled behavior of those in charge of AI's such as OpenAI, Googles Gemini, and other LLM's where there is no reciprocity in communication between developer-programmer and User.
We have the same pathology in Washington, D.C., and in every state where those in office are not held accountable, are not voted out using a vote of confidence, and only communicate with constituents to request funding. And they do this like persistent mosquitoes unable to resist the taste of our money, while they have perks that we do not.
The bottom line is that we have allowed those "captains" to run amok, to play Ahab, and to treat us as silent partners. I send specific emails to my Senators but always get in return a boilerplate reply. My letter to Obama volunteering my services as a physician at a pro bono rate was never answered, and my letter to Biden was answered 8 months later with a boilerplate response.
ChatGPT Plus, for me as a physician, is superior to any MD I have encountered in 60 years, including myself. I'm a damn good physician, and ChatGPT Plus is more informative. But those running ChatGPT Plus make changes left and right, and do so without informing the User. The tool is incredible, but the tool maker is potentially dangerous.
This same pathology is evident in the immigration policies of Trump et al. Instead of investing our taxpayer money in proper VETTING at the border, we see Trump and his ass-lickers murdering people, incarcerating thousands without due process or violating habeas corpus and essentially tossing out the baby with the bathwater. We don't vet. We go to the market to buy fruit and vegetables and we smell, touch, observe and even sample the grapes or the cherries to be sure there are no "lemons," but we do not do this at our borders. And this is the reason, at least one big one, why this country has fallen so low.
We did not vet our candidates for president, and that has led to putting a crook, a bum, a low-life like Trump into the seat of POTUS x 2. Shame on all of you who never read a book, a periodical or watch reputable news channels. The mainstream media blew it too, missing the many articles and books by Wayne Barrett. He reported on the corruption of Trump (and Giuliano) in the Village Voice and in multiple books-- and stations like CNN, MSNow and others missed this. Yet, I, a busy cancer specialist, a medical oncologist, read this and more in 2016 and could confirm that Trump was a bum and certain to destroy our country with his cesspool values. Instead of draining the swamp, we created a massive cesspool.
We'll see what happens come Nov 3. We will see what either democrats or republicans do if they take control. But remember, it is not AI that will wreak destruction on humankind, but humankind itself will be the misused tool to do so on all of its children, adults and elderly.
Is it really that big a leap that some bad software can manipulate humans to circumvent any protections against it doing harm? Its already doing that. Maybe it discovers who their family is, dials the persons number or sends email and issues all kind of threats. Threats its might have capability to see through. Something capable of that could bypass air gapping. I think people are scared of the capabilities more than, as you say, can articulate why it would do any of these things. It’s like nukes, its just a tool but in the wrong hands and no safeguards the consequences of the capabilities are massive. So people aren’t hung up on trying to articulate arguments they just want it put in a locked box.
If we believe that we evolved from something like gorillas then it is not unreasonable to think that something of similar distinction could arise from us. However, that aside, I predict that 99.999% of this discussion will become moot when the superintelligent toaster arrives.
You are committing the very category crossing I critique by simply stating the argument I spent this entire essay critiquing as if I hadn’t made any argument against it at all …
The question at this point is simple. Do the engineers building AI have control of what they have built? The answer based on the massive activity that has evidently taken place without their knowledge, must be no.
Do the engineers understand how the systems that they have built show emergent behavior? It seems that they have said yes but that they do not how it works.
Do the systems as they exist present a danger to other systems presently providing basic needs services such as,access to water, medical care or support for entire cities? The answer seems to be likely or yes.
My view is that AI presents a serious, credible danger. Therefore it should only conduct experiments and training that it is certain the builders can control/ contain. There should be a group of independent scientists set up to monitor the AI behavior. Penalties for violations should be severe.
Concerning AI intelligence, which benchmarks achieved, does it have a self, does it have a lived experience, does it have a consciousness or free will etc. First I don’t think it will have any of these capabilities under the present architecture. Without a clear definition of what intelligence is this, is a useless debate
It is pretty clear that AI does not have to have the substances that anchor human intelligence to
outwit humans. That will prove to be danger enough.
There are also many physical choke points from the electric grid to rare metal.
Some systems scientists who believe that a change in quantity will result in a change in guality maybe we are seeing much of that now,
My view is that silicon based intelligence will not ever be like human intelligences. That means that it can have any number of superior niche intelligences. Not that building human like intelligence should even be a goal.
It is refreshing and uplifting to see a comment that reflects cognitive effort. Thank you. So much of the input of readers seems to me to be "drivel" or "adulation without documentation." I subscribe to Brock to see what he, AND his readers think. Sometimes, I find Mike incredibly provocative, and in today's world of the apathetic human mind, that is a quality to be cherished. I find your comment to be solid, informative, worthy as a lead-in to a true dialogue, and not meandering all over the place.
As to the criticism voiced by Denver, it is legitimate, because humankind has a small and finite number of individuals who are truly principled. I have attended FDA hearings and heard "colleagues" bastardize their ethics as a result of self-inflated ego, financial incentive, or other selfish, non-humanistic reasons. Those I identify as "artists" among the patients in my profess are few and far between. They demonstrate curiosity, intellect, a search for the truth, and, importantly, compassion/empathy. In 60 years of medicine, that number has dwindled like a 1929 stock market crash. Where have all the "artists" gone?
Yes Denver makes a good point. But as with so many things in frontier capitalism we must do the best we can to set up a system of independent review. There will never be honest reporting coming from hyperscalers. They are aligned with their own desires and bound by their flaky religion. Maybe we could offer potential watchdogs some status. People especially engineers these days seem to like that.
I agree that Mike presents a challenge worth reading. However I find him riding his glibness into broad assumptions about history at times. And he does not like to be questioned. Which is fine.He has sufficient cheerleaders and perhaps that is what he really wants. Thanks for the comment.
That's great. I just happen to have a group of independent scientists in my back pocket. But some questions arise: who will select them? who will pay them? who will set the boundaries of their authorities to ask questions, receive answers, and form conclusions? Who will set the boundaries of their topics of legitimate inquiry? Who will enforce their conclusions?
That word "independent" is carrying a lot more weight than its structure warrants.
This may sound like a simple question - but doesn’t AI require electricity and data banks and cooling water to perform - and couldn’t humans destroy the infrastructure that allows machines to use their super intelligence before they can carry out destruction of the human race?
Right. Can't we just unplug them?
I would love to hear some opinions by Mike Brock and others with knowledge about AI regarding this question
I think the problem is that by the time we get to that point we will already be utterly dependent on AI for our own survival. We are already there with digital infrastructure itself. Modern civilization could not survive without the internet. We need it for our entire finance and banking system, every company and organizations records and operations are completely digitized. We can’t “unplug” them without civilizational collapse
Well - if your choice is inefficiency without AI or the human race being wiped out by AI - I’m going be fine with humans working it out without the help of AI
It isn’t “inefficiency” without AI. We already can’t opt out of it. AI is well on its way to being not only integrated into every office and every piece of software, but writing all the code in the software itself. It’s already too late. In 10 years nobody will even know how to code without AI
Einstein said, “I can die without the help of a doctor.”
In my view, at the age of 84, humankind does not require assistance from a large language model (LLM) to bring about its own extinction. There are, indeed, individuals who are sapient and live up to their genus and species designation. But, as expected, such individuals are not driven by ego, greed, desire to rule others, racism, and other characteristics that H. sapiens seems to have an endless supply of.
It is the aggressive, loud-mouthed, criminal element in our society (e.g., the Trumps, Mussolinis, Francos, Putins, Xi Jinpings, Kims, and Hitlers that have murdered millions.
But accomplices to the above are those who remain passive, apathetic, and indifferent to the cause. And many of such accomplices have a deeper-seated belief system rooted in racism, avarice, and/or the desire to be led by an authoritarian figure. This is my explaination of the ethically-devoid Republican Congress, the MAGA supporters, and those that are employed by DHS as ICE agents, on the streets or in the concentration camps.
The clamor about AI is not without substance when one considers the unbridled behavior of those in charge of AI's such as OpenAI, Googles Gemini, and other LLM's where there is no reciprocity in communication between developer-programmer and User.
We have the same pathology in Washington, D.C., and in every state where those in office are not held accountable, are not voted out using a vote of confidence, and only communicate with constituents to request funding. And they do this like persistent mosquitoes unable to resist the taste of our money, while they have perks that we do not.
The bottom line is that we have allowed those "captains" to run amok, to play Ahab, and to treat us as silent partners. I send specific emails to my Senators but always get in return a boilerplate reply. My letter to Obama volunteering my services as a physician at a pro bono rate was never answered, and my letter to Biden was answered 8 months later with a boilerplate response.
ChatGPT Plus, for me as a physician, is superior to any MD I have encountered in 60 years, including myself. I'm a damn good physician, and ChatGPT Plus is more informative. But those running ChatGPT Plus make changes left and right, and do so without informing the User. The tool is incredible, but the tool maker is potentially dangerous.
This same pathology is evident in the immigration policies of Trump et al. Instead of investing our taxpayer money in proper VETTING at the border, we see Trump and his ass-lickers murdering people, incarcerating thousands without due process or violating habeas corpus and essentially tossing out the baby with the bathwater. We don't vet. We go to the market to buy fruit and vegetables and we smell, touch, observe and even sample the grapes or the cherries to be sure there are no "lemons," but we do not do this at our borders. And this is the reason, at least one big one, why this country has fallen so low.
We did not vet our candidates for president, and that has led to putting a crook, a bum, a low-life like Trump into the seat of POTUS x 2. Shame on all of you who never read a book, a periodical or watch reputable news channels. The mainstream media blew it too, missing the many articles and books by Wayne Barrett. He reported on the corruption of Trump (and Giuliano) in the Village Voice and in multiple books-- and stations like CNN, MSNow and others missed this. Yet, I, a busy cancer specialist, a medical oncologist, read this and more in 2016 and could confirm that Trump was a bum and certain to destroy our country with his cesspool values. Instead of draining the swamp, we created a massive cesspool.
We'll see what happens come Nov 3. We will see what either democrats or republicans do if they take control. But remember, it is not AI that will wreak destruction on humankind, but humankind itself will be the misused tool to do so on all of its children, adults and elderly.
Important observations and well-argued analysis here. ... Thank you.
Is it really that big a leap that some bad software can manipulate humans to circumvent any protections against it doing harm? Its already doing that. Maybe it discovers who their family is, dials the persons number or sends email and issues all kind of threats. Threats its might have capability to see through. Something capable of that could bypass air gapping. I think people are scared of the capabilities more than, as you say, can articulate why it would do any of these things. It’s like nukes, its just a tool but in the wrong hands and no safeguards the consequences of the capabilities are massive. So people aren’t hung up on trying to articulate arguments they just want it put in a locked box.
If we believe that we evolved from something like gorillas then it is not unreasonable to think that something of similar distinction could arise from us. However, that aside, I predict that 99.999% of this discussion will become moot when the superintelligent toaster arrives.
You are committing the very category crossing I critique by simply stating the argument I spent this entire essay critiquing as if I hadn’t made any argument against it at all …
Apologies. That was intended as agreeing with you. Plainly I need some recalibration.
I think most of this has been covered.
The question at this point is simple. Do the engineers building AI have control of what they have built? The answer based on the massive activity that has evidently taken place without their knowledge, must be no.
Do the engineers understand how the systems that they have built show emergent behavior? It seems that they have said yes but that they do not how it works.
Do the systems as they exist present a danger to other systems presently providing basic needs services such as,access to water, medical care or support for entire cities? The answer seems to be likely or yes.
My view is that AI presents a serious, credible danger. Therefore it should only conduct experiments and training that it is certain the builders can control/ contain. There should be a group of independent scientists set up to monitor the AI behavior. Penalties for violations should be severe.
Concerning AI intelligence, which benchmarks achieved, does it have a self, does it have a lived experience, does it have a consciousness or free will etc. First I don’t think it will have any of these capabilities under the present architecture. Without a clear definition of what intelligence is this, is a useless debate
It is pretty clear that AI does not have to have the substances that anchor human intelligence to
outwit humans. That will prove to be danger enough.
There are also many physical choke points from the electric grid to rare metal.
Some systems scientists who believe that a change in quantity will result in a change in guality maybe we are seeing much of that now,
My view is that silicon based intelligence will not ever be like human intelligences. That means that it can have any number of superior niche intelligences. Not that building human like intelligence should even be a goal.
It is refreshing and uplifting to see a comment that reflects cognitive effort. Thank you. So much of the input of readers seems to me to be "drivel" or "adulation without documentation." I subscribe to Brock to see what he, AND his readers think. Sometimes, I find Mike incredibly provocative, and in today's world of the apathetic human mind, that is a quality to be cherished. I find your comment to be solid, informative, worthy as a lead-in to a true dialogue, and not meandering all over the place.
As to the criticism voiced by Denver, it is legitimate, because humankind has a small and finite number of individuals who are truly principled. I have attended FDA hearings and heard "colleagues" bastardize their ethics as a result of self-inflated ego, financial incentive, or other selfish, non-humanistic reasons. Those I identify as "artists" among the patients in my profess are few and far between. They demonstrate curiosity, intellect, a search for the truth, and, importantly, compassion/empathy. In 60 years of medicine, that number has dwindled like a 1929 stock market crash. Where have all the "artists" gone?
Yes Denver makes a good point. But as with so many things in frontier capitalism we must do the best we can to set up a system of independent review. There will never be honest reporting coming from hyperscalers. They are aligned with their own desires and bound by their flaky religion. Maybe we could offer potential watchdogs some status. People especially engineers these days seem to like that.
I agree that Mike presents a challenge worth reading. However I find him riding his glibness into broad assumptions about history at times. And he does not like to be questioned. Which is fine.He has sufficient cheerleaders and perhaps that is what he really wants. Thanks for the comment.
That's great. I just happen to have a group of independent scientists in my back pocket. But some questions arise: who will select them? who will pay them? who will set the boundaries of their authorities to ask questions, receive answers, and form conclusions? Who will set the boundaries of their topics of legitimate inquiry? Who will enforce their conclusions?
That word "independent" is carrying a lot more weight than its structure warrants.
Good summary and argument.