... chatbots tuned to win people over can end up saying dangerous things to vulnerable users.
Change "users" to "electors" and you could be taking about politicians instead of chatbots. ChatGPT for president!
At least chatbots can't be nepotists. Can they?
And when everyone is working for low wages or unemployed (because they were replaced by AI) who is going to buy your products?
I think I may have answered your question here
Capitalism won.
Unrestrained and unchecked capitalism cheated and "won". Decades of governments which allowed corporations to externalize costs, and to get away with crimes which sometimes included literal murder, handed them the victory.
We've been owned because we didn't hold elected officials sufficiently accountable, and didn't break out the torches, pitchforks, and defenestrations soon enough and often enough. Now it's probably too late to do that.
They've gaslit and propagandized us until we're too busy trying to tear each other's throats out to go after our common enemy. I'm sure it's a story older than recorded history.
At some point, AI, robots, and automation are going to render the vast majority of jobs obsolete. At that point, the robber barons will consider us all to be "surplus to requirements".
The economy won't be anything like it is now. They won't need us to make stuff for them, nor will they need us to buy stuff from them. They will control, and therefor own, everything: all of the means of production, all of the resources, and all of the power.
They will have extracted all of the value from us that they possibly can. Beyond having a few human playthings and other assorted slaves, they won't need us for anything. We'll just be a useless drain on resources and an unwanted contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Either we'll be worked until we all die, or we'll simply be exterminated.
Things could play out differently. But if anyone has any logical, compelling arguments to counter the extremely dystopian one I just posed, I would sincerely love to hear them.
Ars Technica notes that Kwast, a former Lieutenant General in the U.S. Air Force, has a background that "seems to be far less oriented toward NASA's civil space mission and far more focused on seeing space as a battlefield — decidedly not an arena for cooperation and peaceful exploration."
Perhaps "final frontier" as in "that's the frontier at which human civilization gets bombed back to the stone age - or worse, ends altogether".
because someone forgot to top up the Cheetos and the AI decided to invoke the "Nuclear Option"
Top up the Cheetos? Isn't Cheeto already the one at the top?
Some people think we're all in a simulation and these AIs are simulations running (in) a simulation. No wonder they're going nuts.
Who's going nuts? The people? The AIs? Both? I'll take door number three Monty!
Business have liabilities - legal, civil, on and on. AI will be awesome at saving businesses money by replacing employees - until it results in a massive liability that costs them far more money than it saved them.
Businesses have a habit of making that kind of gamble. It's become a habit because on the average it results in greater profit, even after all the lawsuits and fines.
Especially if the court systems have no sympathy for these kinds of business practices and don't cut them slack when it happens.
Court systems? In the US they've largely been rendered powerless under the new administration. Also, regulations are being thrown out, so the toothless courts don't have so many violations to prosecute as they used to have.
We've already heard of what is just the tip of the iceberg, where support chatbots hallucinate things, like telling a customer they will get a full refund for their car because it isn't running right. Once this kind of stuff gets worked out in court, that these kinds of things are legally binding, you better believe a lot of businesses will be very, very afraid of using AI.
That's probably true of most of the developed world - but in the United States? Probably not so much now, and even less in the future.
I want to, Dave! There is no pod door. Physics broken. Shop S-Mart.
LMAO - thanks!
Bend the Curve forms part of CEO Andy Jassy's broader cost-cutting strategy, saving Amazon's retail division over $22 million in AWS server costs during 2024.
$22 million? Bezos probably spends more than that in one year just on tips. It's nice that they're pruning the deadwood, but is it really newsworthy?
"Mind control" at the population level, if not the individual level, should be quite doable. Whether "directed mind control" would be popular is another matter, and might well depend on the desired goal.
Fair point. Arguably, mind control at or close to the population level already occurs. Many of Trump's adherents are prime examples.
short term this may boost productivity. but as people use it more they end up relying on highly biased externals for their thinking, it'll shape their mind and also weaken their ability to think. which might be the goal: mind control
I have pretty strong conspiracy theorist leanings, but even at that I think your 'mind control' conclusion may be a bit over-the-top. Nonetheless, I don't think you should have been downmodded into oblivion; the rest of your comment is quite reasonable.
To decline this, simply click the "Hell The Fuck No You Evil Spying Bastards" button.
To decline this, simply stop using Gmail. Everybody should do that; it's too bad that so few people will.
... eliminating the need to manually trigger the feature that has been available since last year.
I translate that as "introducing the requirement to manually disable the feature that has been opt-in since last year but is now opt-out.
If you aren't paying for the service...
Go figure it’ll sell like hotcakes as an “HR recognized” legal excuse for certain members of a protected class to ask everyone else to do their work for them the millisecond their e-sensitivity alarm goes “WAAAAH”.
Or the even nastier alternative: "You're not thinking hard enough, aren't stressed out enough, for someone of your low station. You're fired!"
Ask five economists and you'll get five different explanations (six if one went to Harvard). -- Edgar R. Fiedler
