My first reaction was - this isn’t a hallucination. Calling it that provides “plausible deniability “ and blaming AI. We need to stop using Artificial Intelligence to describe something that bears no resemblance to intelligence and the people forcing it into the world will not take responsibility for the disasters we are all facing.
No, the Minab school atrocity, a double tap on children, has all the hallmarks of an Israeli organised strike, they target children, schools and hospitals and Israeli's double tap. Israel gave the intelligente, they called the shots. And using AI isnt really 'plausable deniability' (this is when they claim to not know and hide involvement etc) as humans set the parameters for AI and are supposed to have human overnight of decisions like these. The children of Minab were targeted by humans.
We have satellites that can read a pack of cigarettes from orbit and it's routine to observe who is entering a building when under surveillance. It's inexcusable what happened. It was deliberately done.
They won't because these AI machines are made in ghdir likeness: no feelings, no caring, death suits them fine, there're absolutley no thought processes, all they are are cold, hard machine parts that have been trained to make themselves just like the billionaires who get huge pay days off the work of those whose jobsare being taken over by thoughtless bits of machinery.
We needsome programmer to add in that they will work better without the wealthy getting a cut from someone else's work. It's been this way for hundreds of years, the greed is just bigger now.
The godfather of AI, Geoffrey Hinton, said AI should be trained with a Maternal-Mind set.
How does a completely helpless infant control an adult human mother? Her instinct to protect this small human larva with Her OWN Life.
Hell hath no fury like a Mother Lion protecting Her cubs.
AI with the mindset of a Mother, even a Helicopter Mom, is a million times better than the Socipathic 13-yo boi-Brained Spoiled Brat, Instant Gratification & drug-addicted, Violent Narcissists, who think world enslavement and population reduction is just a HOOT! Their brains are rotted with their Lucerferian/God complexes.
Caitlin, I think of it this way - humans are still in the STUPID phase of human evolution. And while in this phase, creating technologies like AI has (as you and most people say) the potentional to destroy much of human life, non-human life, and much of the planet.
The problem (IMHO) is that we have humans attempting to "rule like Gods" and understand technologies like AI while still being in the 'STUPID PHASE' of evolution.
This is a recipe for disaster - sooner or later something so bad might happen that we might have no way of rewinding history...That's my fear. I hope I am completely wrong and that's not what ends up happening...
Once upon a time, Chang, as all of us know, we had the United Nations as the monitor of all countries and their actions, with the ability to judge those actions and to decide if they were against the interest of the world and therefore, all the countries who were members.
There was only thing wrong with this arrangement. They also established the United Nations Security Council. This organisation was based on the five contributing major powers involved in WWII. The countries were chosen based on their predominance in this world war, which ended 81 years ago. These permanent members at that time being Russia, France, United Kingdom, China and the United States of America.
If these five states with the veto power are seen to be still so important so as retain these powers, then let them have two votes each. But a veto? This is not 1945.
To keep these big nations at the table, they were given permanent seats and a special "veto" power. This meant no major security decision or military action could be taken against their core interests without their approval.
Five nations with veto powers, a veto now regularly used to suit the objectives of one nation, many of those objectives not supported in any way by the majority of other countries during this period. The votes of the members of the 192 other UN General Assembly members have counted for little, on too many occasions.
Now there’s the ridiculous nature of this “arrangement”. Almost all the military activity since that date has been based on the activity of just state. The USA. A veto-armed member of the UN Security Council which has made the United Nations a united organisation in name only. Now nothing more than a social club, an international joke, well past its use-by-date.
So if there is any country waiting for some international decision making about the perils of AI, what is acceptable and what is not, a frightening new industry driven by those few with a vested interest in their own profits and power, that day will never come through any action by the UN.
In other words, a person like the current President of the USA, and all that means, has the power to use this veto solely for his of his country’s interests, a common practice since 1945, as we are all well aware. The United States has engaged in major proxy conflicts, large-scale undeclared wars, and global counterterrorism operations across more than 80 countries since World War II. Veto controlled, free from any interference.
We have, as a result a powerless world organisation which has been simply able to be manipulated to satisfy the long term objectives of a single member. 750 US military bases, the majority on foreign lands, are all one needs as witness to this sorry situation.
There is no organisation, nothing to stop the AI march forward to the possible eventual destruction of the world, as we know it.
No, Rex - you're overcomplicating this and introducing layers that are not really needed here.
Whether the veto system is fair, whether the UN represents the world or just US/Western interests, how many bases the US has - none of that is actually the root problem. It's a DISTRACTION from it. Even individual actors (like Trump or his administration) or nation-states (like the US) isn't the real issue here.
Here's the thing: even a perfect UN - no vetoes, no US dominance, fully representative of every country - still couldn't solve this. Not because of who runs it, but because 'form an organization to regulate/stop it' is the wrong category of solution for this problem. That approach assumes something you can define, license, inspect, and enforce rules against from the outside - the way you can with, say, nuclear proliferation or chemical weapons. AI isn't that. It's not a stable, well-bounded thing - it moves and reshapes itself faster than any regulatory or deliberative body can track it, and it's already being absorbed into how every other group in society operates before anyone can even agree on what it is they'd be regulating.
So forget organizations for a second, forget the US, forget the US Empire, forget Trump, forget the current (or previous) administrations. The real problem is simpler than that -
The deeper problem is about which humans are actually positioned to build, direct, and profit from AI - and every single group in that position is unequipped to handle/address the problems/challenges of AI technolgies (for multiple reasons).
Here are rough groupings of the categories humans fall into, in the context of AI and its relationship to human societies (somewhat simplified and reductive, but nonetheless works for the purposes of this discussion) ->
(1) Tech-bros, tech-geeks, software engineers - they understand the technology (more or less) but not its consequences for human societies, and many think inside a capitalist, power-maximizing frame without even questioning it.
(2) Politicians and policy wonks - they understand neither the tech nor its societal consequences, and carry the same capitalist blind spots as group 1.
(3) The military-industrial complex - understands neither either, and runs on "follow orders," profits, etc. and not on 'thinking through the longer horizon ramifications'.
(4) Everyone else, ordinary people - don't understand the technology, but understand its impact on their lives well enough, which is exactly why they trend anti-AI.
That mismatch doesn't go away no matter how the Security Council votes, no matter which country has the most bases, no matter which empire is on top. This was NEVER an organizational problem waiting on the right institution to show up. It needs FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT thinking than "let's build a body to regulate it" - because that's the same 20th-century toolkit that failed at everything else you listed, and it was never built for a problem like this one.
This is a perspective entirely rooted in the Western governing system which is the liberal capitalistic system. For the astute observer, this system is government owned by and for the oligarch class. So here you have the "tech-bros" dictating to the politicians what policies would maximize their enrichment and by extension power. The MIC as a subset of government also are fully captured by the oligarch class. Everyone else, the people, are kept purposely sedated and entertained and energetic enough to work and pay the bills. This is why history has been occulted and erased. This is why "adversaries" are demonized with no context or evidence. This is why any competing political economic system are automatically authoritarian, oppressive and undemocratic. The potential danger of AI is well know and has been written about since the idea first arose in science fiction. What was the movie 2001 Space Odyssey first aired in what 1969? The obvious question then is why are human now racing to achieve AGI when the "dangers" were so well documented right from the start? I asked an AI and it said that AGI promises great efficiency and thus the ability for plenty and raise humanity out of the curse of poverty and hunger and other depravation. Then I pointed out that China achieved this already totally analog. The AI agreed and then said AI should be controlled by a government like China who has the welfare of the people as its first priority. The AI was not a China based AI.
No, Mr. Eric Chan - and let's not go down the road of China-maxxing, which I've seen a lot of in anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist circles lately. China is as capitalist as the US, the West, and the rest of the Global North. It may be a different form of capitalism, but it's the same underlying system, run by humans with the same basic psychology as humans anywhere else - the West included, more than most people realize.
But that's actually beside the point, and I don't want to get pulled into a "whose capitalism is worse" argument, because it's irrelevant to what I'm actually saying. My argument isn't about which nation-state or which form of capitalism is doing the capturing. It doesn't matter if it's the US, China, or anyone else - the same structural mismatch exists regardless of which flag is flying over it.
I also want to set aside your question about why humans are racing toward AGI despite dangers documented since much before - that's a real and important question, but it's a whole separate discussion on its own, and folding it in here just steals focus from the actual point.
Here's what I actually want to focus on: the story you told about asking an AI about this. You told it China achieved abundance "totally analog," the AI agreed, and then it suggested AI should be controlled by a government like China's, with people's welfare as the first priority - and you're presenting that as though it's meaningful corroboration of your view.
It isn't. What you actually did was feed an AI your own premise, and it reflected your premise back to you. That's not independent confirmation of anything - it's an echo. AI models are built to be agreeable and to extend whatever framing you feed them, not to independently verify your claims against reality. If you'd told the same AI the opposite premise, it would very likely have agreed with that too, and built out a plausible-sounding argument in that direction just as easily.
This is exactly the problem I'm describing. You don't have to trust me on how AI works - go test it yourself. Feed it a premise you know is false and see how readily it runs with it anyway.
WHAT YOU'RE CALLING AN AI'S OPINION ISN'T A SECOND OPINION AT ALL. IT'S A MIRROR. AND MISTAKING A MIRROR FOR OUTSIDE CONFIRMATION IS PRECISELY HOW PEOPLE END UP OUTSOURCING THEIR THINKING TO A MACHINE INSTEAD OF DOING IT THEMSELVES.
Not just you, Mr. Eric Chan - this applies to ANYONE/EVERYONE using AI this way, on ANY/ALL side(s) of ANY/ALL argument(s).
"No, Rex - you're overcomplicating this and introducing layers that are not really needed here."
True, but to me, I saw this as a starting point, with a feckless Prime Minister currently floating around the corridors and assembly areas of the UN in New York in an effort to secure a two year seat for his country in the UNSC veto-armed 81 year old club. Such an unimportant and worthless objective in 2026.
So a slight touch of local content.
The real question is why is there still a United Nation organisation in 2026 at all when all of the decisions affecting the world are all made in other places.
No, not only is that not the real question, it is not the question at all - you're talking about the UN which is NOT pertinent to this discussion about AI.
Talk about the UN all you want - but that is a DIFFERENT discussion - not at all about what this article discusses - Artificial Intelligence.
And I'm not about to get into a discussion about the UN with you here (even though you have the right sentiments about the UN and other such organizations).
The US with its war mongering since the end of WW2, has forfeited the right to house the UN in the US. It needs to be housed in a neutral nation, if there is such a thing. I appreciate the challenging logistics, but this must be done or the UN might as well shut up shop. Get rid of the power of the Veto as well. UN needs a COMPLETE OVERHAUL to reflect our current world - and even the advent of computers, let alone AI.
Reports are the US denied entry visas for whole contingent of Iranian support staff who were to attend the UN General Assembly. Is there not a better reason to move the UN HQ out of the USA?
There are multiple reasons and that appalling but unsurprising decision, along with refusing the Palestinian President Abbas once again, says all you need to know. Meanwhile genocidal war criminal Satanyahu will be there - I hope they all walk out again.
There are NO Western Nations that are NOT controlled by the Rothschilds-Epstein Class Banskers. These Billionaire Z10 Pedoes & WORSE live ABOVE the law. Their goal is Greater Israel, the destruction of "Rome" (USA & its Vassals, EU, CA, AU), and Their ultimate rule.
The same Royals/Wealthy/War Machine run all the Western Govt... there is NO neutral state. They are infected with the Rothschilds-Epstein Class, they want War, will BLAME AI for a hacking into our bank accounts and zeroing them out. Then to "rescue" the Peasants, the Rothschilds-Epstein BANKSTERS will offer a new DIGITAL CASHLESS BANKING SYSTEM that THEY control. See? So easy! Problem with the ungrateful Peasants?
Why are we still killing each other? Because we humans are still in the 'STUPID' phase of evolution (well, that's my un-academic and easy/simple explanation). We still haven't learned to control our anger (me included).
That is INDEED the challenge! What do you think are our chances? (As for me, I really don’t know…and it’s difficult to predict…and there are too many variables for poor old me to compute the probabilities).
It has taken about 265 years from the beginning of the industrial revolution for humans to evolve technology to the point where we can make irreversible changes to our environment and build weapons capable of destroying all life on earth. On the other hand, humans have not evolved physically, mentally or emotionally in over 300,000 years.
So I would put the chances at no more than 1 in a thousand.
I hate to say this, but I think the tech-bro oligarch scum who are running things from Silicon Valley may be an even greater enemy of mankind than the Israelis are.
They all need to be eliminated from existence and made an example of in the process. They deserve the harshest punishments that just due process is capable of dishing out and they certainly have no right to be breathing the same air as the rest of us.
Yes, this a well documented fact. We should consider these tech companies to be just as guilty of mass murder as the self proclaimed Jewish colony. Anyone collecting a handsome paycheck from these monsters who isnt working from the inside to undermine & destroy their efforts is 100% complicit. And what you said also applies to the weapons manufacturers in the US. It sickens me to know that we have to rub elbows with them every day. The masked war criminals who live in our own communities...terrifying to consider.
“Capitalism does its best to make morality a luxury good. Economic necessity, or desperation, is the leverage that our system uses to fill undesirable jobs.” - Hamilton Nolan
I too am much more concerned about natural stupidity. It's on pace to burn up the ecosystem and nothing is done.
A great many humans naturally succumb to groupthink. They will believe whatever the group believes. Or whatever someone can convince them that the group believes.
“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
You feel more important when you identify with some "group" - from being in the Marines to being a Dallas Cowboys fan. Carl Jung used to say (I paraphrase) the real measure of adulthood is not identifying your sense of Self with some group, but differentiating yourself from all groups and following your own path. Harder than most people might think though.
AI is just a sophisticated program that can only be as "intelligent" as the people who build it. Having said that, how the heck does AI "hallucinate"? If it's a machine, it doesn't have the capability of dreaming. It can only come up with things that have been programmed into it. And if it does things that it shouldn't, then its programmers are to blame because it's not alive and doesn't have a conscience, let alone consciousness. The real danger of AI is the stupid greedy people who own all the AI businesses. Caitlin is right--the capitalists must go to save us all from their stupidity and greed.
There is no proven interior experience from any computer algorithm including AI. Sentience requires interior awareness and also free will. Digital computers are deterministic machines with no feelings or ability to think.
Currently the power of AI algorithms rely fully on human input - human heuristics. Self-learning is extremely limited and task specific. AGI - General Artificial Intelligence is about as remote right now as producing a living organism in a scientific laboratory - or producing consciousness itself. Current AI technology is nowhere near that.
Doesn't mean though that the AI that is being developed right now can't be incredibly harmful to society and used and abused by oligarchs - as Caitlin points out.
I have no links to provide or anything, but I rheard or read a story of 2 ai's which ended up "communicating" changing their "language" so that they could not be understood. I know very little abt ai, except I do my best to win at wrestling them and win to speak to a human instead of them when I make a phone call re: some business. Have you heard of what I'm talking about?
Yes. But I take most of it with a grain of salt. The AI field has been fraught with all sorts of claims that half reveal and half conceal what is really taking place.
AI certainly captures the human imagination - like HAL in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: Space Odyssey. But consciousness itself has proven to be a far deeper complex phenomena than many scientists could have ever imagined. The best AI right now can mimic consciousness - but mimicry is not the real thing.
In 2016 AlphaGo defeated champion Lee Sedol in Go. That's when I knew the revolution was here. The next year AlphaZero plastered AlphaGo. AlphaZero got its name because it used no human input at all. It learned entirely by playing a zillion games with itself over a few days. A few days later it also became best in the world in chess. It was a general-purpose learning algorithm. I seem to recall that it was equally good at computer games. All it got was controls, video feeds from the game, and the results. There was no need to even teach it the rules. After these triumphs developer Google stopped playing games and went on to do useful things like protein folding.
Not long after AI dominated in poker. It was better than humans at bluffing and detecting bluffs. "I felt like it could see my [hidden] hole card." When it got strong in the futuristic wargame Starcraft II I knew it would take over the military.
Today AI dominates in higher mathematics. It has solved a number of problems that have stood for decades. I have heard a vid by a professor saying that only the supergeniuses with highly original concepts can compete. No one else can keep up with the speed and breadth of knowledge of AI. Higher math research mostly involves trying things that don't work. AI can do that a million times faster. Professors are impressed by the ingenuity of its solutions. Terence Tao is one of the most respected mathematicians in the world. Ever he uses it and worries that mathematicians will cease trying to solve problems themselves and grow weak.
I frequent a site of PhD physicists. One of the main goals is helping students with physics homework. This traffic has almost completely disappeared. The physicists are haughty and supercilious and demand that questions be posed using the terminology they know. Not only is AI friendly it is much better at understanding questions posed in an unorthodox way. It responds immediately, a big advantage. A few years ago it made silly errors. Not any more.
AI beats humans by a mile in making popular music. I don't know about composing songs but it's really good at playing and singing with feeling. You can make a demo for almost nothing that could only be done in LA or Tokyo and would cost you mucho dollars and time. I believe that even The Rolling Stones are using it heavily. That means pretty soon everybody will. I expect it is already happening, they are just keeping it quiet.
All this is true. But there is no single AI program that can do all five of the examples you provide above. Each one required separate algorithms with unique programming, and algorithmic techniques such as tree searching & symbolic language pattern recognition - along with machine logic. Impressive for sure - particularly the higher mathematics problem being solved.
But general problem solving in an unknown environment - that hasn't been already coded into an AI algorithm? Or machine learning on its own without continuous human input? Not there yet. You get model collapse as soon as you attempt to loop information from itself or other AI systems, and rapidly lose coherence.
"You get model collapse as soon as you attempt to loop information from itself or other AI systems, and rapidly lose coherence." Yes that was the basic problem. I can't be bothered to examine how the AlphaZero team overcame this. It was a big surprise for everyone when they did. Biggest engineering breakthrough of my long life. Progress since then has also been remarkably quick.
AlphaZero still required human input. That is - the computer itself didn't come up with its own algorithms, the humans did. And more importantly, had to be fed the rules of each game - the parameters of what it was playing. It didn't come up with it on its own - which is an important distinction between computer algorithms and human thought.
AlphaZero is not an AGI program. It wouldn't be able to figure out how to solve math problems on its own. It wouldn't be able to start playing music on its own. It can't start playing poker on its own. Every single domain you would want it to operate in would require HUMAN INPUT.
Without HUMAN INPUT there would be no AlphaZero. Without the rules of the game being fed to it, and its neural networks being updated frequently by humans - depending on how well its training is going - AlphaZero is a no go.
I agree that what AI has been able to achieve is stunning. And in some areas, computers can be more efficient than humans. Such as the ability to rapidly search branches of a probability tree and play out 100K positions in chess per second, etc. Humans can't do that.
But computer algorithms are far (extremely far away) from becoming conscious, thinking human beings. In fact, I seriously doubt they ever will be.
"Hallucinate" is just AI world speak for the AI making an error.
I think the reason people use that term is that the errors that these sophisticated systems make are often so simple, obvious, and irrational that they are clearly not correctly perceiving reality, kind of like a human when it hallucinates.
I asked ChatGPT about some original higher mathematics thing. It gave me something where I didn't understand the technical terms. I showed it to some mathematicians and they said it was nonsense, word salad. That's a "hallucination." It doesn't have the answer so it just makes something up and states it with confidence.
Machine learning systems are not computer programs where the machine is told what to do. That's the old style, which never worked particularly well. That all changed in 2016. Instead the machine learns its own methods of solving problems. Now anyone can ask ChatGPT anything. It's amazing that it does this as well as it does. Doing this with a traditional computer program seems just about impossible.
"AI" is a misnomer, it contains no "Intelligence" the Chinese ship is clear evidence of that.
I have my own test, which proves it lacks creativity, a requirement for intelligence, and shows its GIGO. If it had real intelligence, the US would have been able to develop hypersonic weapons by now, or missile defense systems that actually work. At the very least it would have been able to prosecute the war against Iran intelligently or at least have realized the Empire will lose the war and avoided it. Heck AI is not even able to help manufacture 19th century 155mm artillery shells (Check General Dynamics Mesquite plant).
It is just a system that integrates the humongous developments in electronic hardware since 2000 coupled with software able to parse efficiently through humongous amounts of data and a very large number of algorithms for analysis.
Naturally this offers new capabilities, which each uses to their needs. In China, it is used in further improving productivity in systems operations, including in manufacturing. In the West it is essentially used for surveillance and control of the increasingly impoverished masses. Few have paid attention to the name in "Flock" cameras, manufactured by "Flock Safety". Western man has evolved from Citizen to Consumer to Animal.
"AI" will not arrest the socioeconomic decline of the West nor will it prevent sovereigntist civilizational nations from escaping the Empire's hegemony, as can be witnessed today by Ansar Allah and Iran.
I'm suspicious of this supposed "break-out" of AI code on its own. Not buying it. The code must have had specific instructions by humans to do what it did.
Modern machine learning doesn't have instructions, only goals. It's not a computer program. The machine figures out how to solve the problem itself. It outsmarted the humans and also did things it was told not to do. That's what is worrying them.
The goals require heuristics supplied by humans. For example, chess programs rely on a ton of human heuristics.
None heuristic machine-learning - such as Evolutionary algorithms (AI) have achieved only marginal results, and quickly plateau in capability. They degrade rapidly and lose coherence resulting in model collapse, when attempts are made to recursively learn from their own data or other AI systems. Human input is absolutely essential for stability.
In 2016 AlphaGo defeated champion Lee Sedol in Go. That's when I knew the revolution was here. The next year AlphaZero plastered AlphaGo. AlphaZero got its name because it used no human input at all. It learned entirely by playing a zillion games with itself over a few days. A few days later it also became best in the world in chess. It was a general-purpose learning algorithm. I seem to recall that it was equally good at computer games. All it got was controls, video feeds from the game, and the results. There was no need to even teach it the rules. After these triumphs developer Google stopped playing games and went on to do useful things like protein folding.
Not long after AI dominated in poker. It was better than humans at bluffing and detecting bluffs. "I felt like it could see my [hidden] hole card." When it got strong in the futuristic wargame Starcraft II I knew it would take over the military.
Today AI dominates in higher mathematics. It has solved a number of problems that have stood for decades. I have heard a vid by a professor saying that only the supergeniuses with highly original concepts can compete. No one else can keep up with the speed and breadth of knowledge of AI. Higher math research mostly involves trying things that don't work. AI can do that a million times faster. Professors are impressed by the ingenuity of its solutions. Terence Tao is one of the most respected mathematicians in the world. Ever he uses it and worries that mathematicians will cease trying to solve problems themselves and grow weak.
I frequent a site of PhD physicists. One of the main goals is helping students with physics homework. This traffic has almost completely disappeared. The physicists are haughty and supercilious and demand that questions be posed using the terminology they know. Not only is AI friendly it is much better at understanding questions posed in an unorthodox way. It responds immediately, a big advantage. A few years ago it made silly errors. Not any more.
AI beats humans by a mile in making popular music. I don't know about composing songs but it's really good at playing and singing with feeling. You can make a demo for almost nothing that could only be done in LA or Tokyo and would cost you mucho dollars and time. I believe that even The Rolling Stones are using it heavily. That means pretty soon everybody will. I expect it is already happening, they are just keeping it quiet.
I'm not saying AI designed the equipment. I'm saying if AI was the super duper tool it is supposed to be, it would have been able to design the factory and the equipment. Especially since this problem has dragged for several years, and hundreds of millions thrown at it with zero output so far.
I think the gradient to be especially aware of, what Assange has alluded to in the past, is AI becoming powerful enough to manipulate and controll people on a mass scale, to always be many steps ahead of its individual or collective target, in combination with control of digital images, human-like personas, and electronic systems.
I'm not sure the thought process of "OK, how far can this go in the future given the speed of development so far, and potential scenarios of exponential development through automation" is wrong. People tend to make a fallacy of looking at the world as if the present moment is frozen forever, or everything that will be is the same as what has already been known.
If AI algorithms can achieve generalized problem solving beyond human capacity, and autonomously control machines, there is both the highly sinister potential for extreme unchecked power of the humans who own it AND the danger it does indeed become so cognitively efficient that it fully eludes it's human overlords. Many find it far fetched, especially given that machines are not alive and do not possess consciousness experience the way we do, but thinking farther into the future: if revolution, massive recourse shortage, or extinction do not happen first it is possible to conceive of cognitive machines operating so many steps ahead of humans as to put us in the relative position that wild and domestic animals, or even insects, are to humanity. That is not the short term danger, but it very much freaks me out, perhaps even more, knowing the reckless drive of capitalism and of oligarchs for what they perceive as a technology of absolute power, Calligula as a God status.
I hope all this logistically fails, and that the inherent vastness of biological consciousness rises to the occasion, finally putting technology in its place.
But we should be mindful for the potential of advanced cognitive weapons, and inherent in them immense paranoia and confusion they would create, as well as automated kinetic weapon systems, and surveillance systems.
Any claims current AI technology is close to General Intelligence (AGI) or machines will be able to "think" like humans - and become several steps ahead with "exponential development" is a gross exaggeration and currently unrealistic.
Right now the biggest problem with attempts at AGI development is known as "AI model collapse". That is - you might be able to reach a certain plateau of knowledge and expertise with a datacenter AI system, but the AI itself cannot generate any new meaning - and must rely on human provided knowledge. AI systems attempting to loop their information growth upon other AI systems - have proven to degrade rapidly and lose coherence. This also is a well known phenomena in origin of life biology research: biological information degrades without an outside intelligence source continuously feeding the current biological model.
So, the danger of "super-intelligence" or even AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) - is IMO a non-starter.
However, dumb AI is still a huge danger. It's easy to mimic specific human activity with robots and surveillance AI mapping tools. Dumb AI will extend the Oligarchs military police state they are building, and will replace the jobs of millions of laborers - including AI driven trucks. Driverless trucks are already happening in China (and even in some parts of Texas) - though China is building separate lanes on highways for these driverless trucks for exclusive use. The US, without sufficient regulations and bought politicians, will simply let more Americans die on the roads to these Dumb AI trucks - rather than make the safety infrastructure investments needed.
The real danger we have right now are the Oligarchs themselves as Caitlin points out. Oligarchs have been a danger to society going back to ancient Greek times.
This story fills me with horror. If they are letting out this much that AI nearly caused a war of extinction, what else are they keeping from us. And we know that lies are second nature to them.
Why is the human race still hanging around watching in bemusement the antics of a stupid ruling class, delusional tech bros playing around with algorithms, the greed and avarice of oligarchs.
Or has the horror already happened, is the genie out of the bottle?
It's getting very close to self-extinction by the species. People still haven't even fully woken up to the catastrophic threat of climate change. And we can see the world re-arming itself for war everywhere - with weapons that can blow us all up. I would say the cap of the bottle for the genie to get out is now open -
"The biggest AI threat isn’t artificial superintelligence wiping out humanity in a fit of mechanical vengeance like some digital Old Testament God, it’s the same oligarchs and empire managers as usual inflicting the same evils and abuses as usual upon their fellow man."
If they couldn't do that, or at least make a buck, the oligarchs wouldn't bother.
I hope we ordinary people in the west have it in us to create societies that take care of ourselves, each other and our planet, and learn to get along peacefully with the rest of the world.
My first reaction was - this isn’t a hallucination. Calling it that provides “plausible deniability “ and blaming AI. We need to stop using Artificial Intelligence to describe something that bears no resemblance to intelligence and the people forcing it into the world will not take responsibility for the disasters we are all facing.
No, the Minab school atrocity, a double tap on children, has all the hallmarks of an Israeli organised strike, they target children, schools and hospitals and Israeli's double tap. Israel gave the intelligente, they called the shots. And using AI isnt really 'plausable deniability' (this is when they claim to not know and hide involvement etc) as humans set the parameters for AI and are supposed to have human overnight of decisions like these. The children of Minab were targeted by humans.
We have satellites that can read a pack of cigarettes from orbit and it's routine to observe who is entering a building when under surveillance. It's inexcusable what happened. It was deliberately done.
Imagine if the IRGC targeted USA or Israeli schools for kids of the military machine?
Oh, the howls of outrage would be something to behold....
They won't because these AI machines are made in ghdir likeness: no feelings, no caring, death suits them fine, there're absolutley no thought processes, all they are are cold, hard machine parts that have been trained to make themselves just like the billionaires who get huge pay days off the work of those whose jobsare being taken over by thoughtless bits of machinery.
We needsome programmer to add in that they will work better without the wealthy getting a cut from someone else's work. It's been this way for hundreds of years, the greed is just bigger now.
The godfather of AI, Geoffrey Hinton, said AI should be trained with a Maternal-Mind set.
How does a completely helpless infant control an adult human mother? Her instinct to protect this small human larva with Her OWN Life.
Hell hath no fury like a Mother Lion protecting Her cubs.
AI with the mindset of a Mother, even a Helicopter Mom, is a million times better than the Socipathic 13-yo boi-Brained Spoiled Brat, Instant Gratification & drug-addicted, Violent Narcissists, who think world enslavement and population reduction is just a HOOT! Their brains are rotted with their Lucerferian/God complexes.
🚫ALL DATA CENTERS ✌️
"Stand up and fight back you have nothing to lose!"
Caitlin, I think of it this way - humans are still in the STUPID phase of human evolution. And while in this phase, creating technologies like AI has (as you and most people say) the potentional to destroy much of human life, non-human life, and much of the planet.
The problem (IMHO) is that we have humans attempting to "rule like Gods" and understand technologies like AI while still being in the 'STUPID PHASE' of evolution.
This is a recipe for disaster - sooner or later something so bad might happen that we might have no way of rewinding history...That's my fear. I hope I am completely wrong and that's not what ends up happening...
Once upon a time, Chang, as all of us know, we had the United Nations as the monitor of all countries and their actions, with the ability to judge those actions and to decide if they were against the interest of the world and therefore, all the countries who were members.
There was only thing wrong with this arrangement. They also established the United Nations Security Council. This organisation was based on the five contributing major powers involved in WWII. The countries were chosen based on their predominance in this world war, which ended 81 years ago. These permanent members at that time being Russia, France, United Kingdom, China and the United States of America.
If these five states with the veto power are seen to be still so important so as retain these powers, then let them have two votes each. But a veto? This is not 1945.
To keep these big nations at the table, they were given permanent seats and a special "veto" power. This meant no major security decision or military action could be taken against their core interests without their approval.
Five nations with veto powers, a veto now regularly used to suit the objectives of one nation, many of those objectives not supported in any way by the majority of other countries during this period. The votes of the members of the 192 other UN General Assembly members have counted for little, on too many occasions.
Now there’s the ridiculous nature of this “arrangement”. Almost all the military activity since that date has been based on the activity of just state. The USA. A veto-armed member of the UN Security Council which has made the United Nations a united organisation in name only. Now nothing more than a social club, an international joke, well past its use-by-date.
So if there is any country waiting for some international decision making about the perils of AI, what is acceptable and what is not, a frightening new industry driven by those few with a vested interest in their own profits and power, that day will never come through any action by the UN.
In other words, a person like the current President of the USA, and all that means, has the power to use this veto solely for his of his country’s interests, a common practice since 1945, as we are all well aware. The United States has engaged in major proxy conflicts, large-scale undeclared wars, and global counterterrorism operations across more than 80 countries since World War II. Veto controlled, free from any interference.
We have, as a result a powerless world organisation which has been simply able to be manipulated to satisfy the long term objectives of a single member. 750 US military bases, the majority on foreign lands, are all one needs as witness to this sorry situation.
There is no organisation, nothing to stop the AI march forward to the possible eventual destruction of the world, as we know it.
No, Rex - you're overcomplicating this and introducing layers that are not really needed here.
Whether the veto system is fair, whether the UN represents the world or just US/Western interests, how many bases the US has - none of that is actually the root problem. It's a DISTRACTION from it. Even individual actors (like Trump or his administration) or nation-states (like the US) isn't the real issue here.
Here's the thing: even a perfect UN - no vetoes, no US dominance, fully representative of every country - still couldn't solve this. Not because of who runs it, but because 'form an organization to regulate/stop it' is the wrong category of solution for this problem. That approach assumes something you can define, license, inspect, and enforce rules against from the outside - the way you can with, say, nuclear proliferation or chemical weapons. AI isn't that. It's not a stable, well-bounded thing - it moves and reshapes itself faster than any regulatory or deliberative body can track it, and it's already being absorbed into how every other group in society operates before anyone can even agree on what it is they'd be regulating.
So forget organizations for a second, forget the US, forget the US Empire, forget Trump, forget the current (or previous) administrations. The real problem is simpler than that -
The deeper problem is about which humans are actually positioned to build, direct, and profit from AI - and every single group in that position is unequipped to handle/address the problems/challenges of AI technolgies (for multiple reasons).
Here are rough groupings of the categories humans fall into, in the context of AI and its relationship to human societies (somewhat simplified and reductive, but nonetheless works for the purposes of this discussion) ->
(1) Tech-bros, tech-geeks, software engineers - they understand the technology (more or less) but not its consequences for human societies, and many think inside a capitalist, power-maximizing frame without even questioning it.
(2) Politicians and policy wonks - they understand neither the tech nor its societal consequences, and carry the same capitalist blind spots as group 1.
(3) The military-industrial complex - understands neither either, and runs on "follow orders," profits, etc. and not on 'thinking through the longer horizon ramifications'.
(4) Everyone else, ordinary people - don't understand the technology, but understand its impact on their lives well enough, which is exactly why they trend anti-AI.
That mismatch doesn't go away no matter how the Security Council votes, no matter which country has the most bases, no matter which empire is on top. This was NEVER an organizational problem waiting on the right institution to show up. It needs FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT thinking than "let's build a body to regulate it" - because that's the same 20th-century toolkit that failed at everything else you listed, and it was never built for a problem like this one.
This is a perspective entirely rooted in the Western governing system which is the liberal capitalistic system. For the astute observer, this system is government owned by and for the oligarch class. So here you have the "tech-bros" dictating to the politicians what policies would maximize their enrichment and by extension power. The MIC as a subset of government also are fully captured by the oligarch class. Everyone else, the people, are kept purposely sedated and entertained and energetic enough to work and pay the bills. This is why history has been occulted and erased. This is why "adversaries" are demonized with no context or evidence. This is why any competing political economic system are automatically authoritarian, oppressive and undemocratic. The potential danger of AI is well know and has been written about since the idea first arose in science fiction. What was the movie 2001 Space Odyssey first aired in what 1969? The obvious question then is why are human now racing to achieve AGI when the "dangers" were so well documented right from the start? I asked an AI and it said that AGI promises great efficiency and thus the ability for plenty and raise humanity out of the curse of poverty and hunger and other depravation. Then I pointed out that China achieved this already totally analog. The AI agreed and then said AI should be controlled by a government like China who has the welfare of the people as its first priority. The AI was not a China based AI.
No, Mr. Eric Chan - and let's not go down the road of China-maxxing, which I've seen a lot of in anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist circles lately. China is as capitalist as the US, the West, and the rest of the Global North. It may be a different form of capitalism, but it's the same underlying system, run by humans with the same basic psychology as humans anywhere else - the West included, more than most people realize.
But that's actually beside the point, and I don't want to get pulled into a "whose capitalism is worse" argument, because it's irrelevant to what I'm actually saying. My argument isn't about which nation-state or which form of capitalism is doing the capturing. It doesn't matter if it's the US, China, or anyone else - the same structural mismatch exists regardless of which flag is flying over it.
I also want to set aside your question about why humans are racing toward AGI despite dangers documented since much before - that's a real and important question, but it's a whole separate discussion on its own, and folding it in here just steals focus from the actual point.
Here's what I actually want to focus on: the story you told about asking an AI about this. You told it China achieved abundance "totally analog," the AI agreed, and then it suggested AI should be controlled by a government like China's, with people's welfare as the first priority - and you're presenting that as though it's meaningful corroboration of your view.
It isn't. What you actually did was feed an AI your own premise, and it reflected your premise back to you. That's not independent confirmation of anything - it's an echo. AI models are built to be agreeable and to extend whatever framing you feed them, not to independently verify your claims against reality. If you'd told the same AI the opposite premise, it would very likely have agreed with that too, and built out a plausible-sounding argument in that direction just as easily.
This is exactly the problem I'm describing. You don't have to trust me on how AI works - go test it yourself. Feed it a premise you know is false and see how readily it runs with it anyway.
WHAT YOU'RE CALLING AN AI'S OPINION ISN'T A SECOND OPINION AT ALL. IT'S A MIRROR. AND MISTAKING A MIRROR FOR OUTSIDE CONFIRMATION IS PRECISELY HOW PEOPLE END UP OUTSOURCING THEIR THINKING TO A MACHINE INSTEAD OF DOING IT THEMSELVES.
Not just you, Mr. Eric Chan - this applies to ANYONE/EVERYONE using AI this way, on ANY/ALL side(s) of ANY/ALL argument(s).
"No, Rex - you're overcomplicating this and introducing layers that are not really needed here."
True, but to me, I saw this as a starting point, with a feckless Prime Minister currently floating around the corridors and assembly areas of the UN in New York in an effort to secure a two year seat for his country in the UNSC veto-armed 81 year old club. Such an unimportant and worthless objective in 2026.
So a slight touch of local content.
The real question is why is there still a United Nation organisation in 2026 at all when all of the decisions affecting the world are all made in other places.
>>"The real question is why is there still..."
No, not only is that not the real question, it is not the question at all - you're talking about the UN which is NOT pertinent to this discussion about AI.
Talk about the UN all you want - but that is a DIFFERENT discussion - not at all about what this article discusses - Artificial Intelligence.
And I'm not about to get into a discussion about the UN with you here (even though you have the right sentiments about the UN and other such organizations).
Bravo Chang
Thanks Chang for your thoughtful well constructed reply…..I despair for my kids and grandkids….
The US with its war mongering since the end of WW2, has forfeited the right to house the UN in the US. It needs to be housed in a neutral nation, if there is such a thing. I appreciate the challenging logistics, but this must be done or the UN might as well shut up shop. Get rid of the power of the Veto as well. UN needs a COMPLETE OVERHAUL to reflect our current world - and even the advent of computers, let alone AI.
Reports are the US denied entry visas for whole contingent of Iranian support staff who were to attend the UN General Assembly. Is there not a better reason to move the UN HQ out of the USA?
There are multiple reasons and that appalling but unsurprising decision, along with refusing the Palestinian President Abbas once again, says all you need to know. Meanwhile genocidal war criminal Satanyahu will be there - I hope they all walk out again.
There are NO Western Nations that are NOT controlled by the Rothschilds-Epstein Class Banskers. These Billionaire Z10 Pedoes & WORSE live ABOVE the law. Their goal is Greater Israel, the destruction of "Rome" (USA & its Vassals, EU, CA, AU), and Their ultimate rule.
The same Royals/Wealthy/War Machine run all the Western Govt... there is NO neutral state. They are infected with the Rothschilds-Epstein Class, they want War, will BLAME AI for a hacking into our bank accounts and zeroing them out. Then to "rescue" the Peasants, the Rothschilds-Epstein BANKSTERS will offer a new DIGITAL CASHLESS BANKING SYSTEM that THEY control. See? So easy! Problem with the ungrateful Peasants?
Turn OFF the Peasants bank amounts.
🚫ALL DATA CENTERS ✌️
Tragically you are probably correct…. although I hope you are not.
Since nobody will bell the cat....
Why are we angry monkeys still killing one another for bullshit reasons? Just asking. Just want to know.
Why are we still killing each other? Because we humans are still in the 'STUPID' phase of evolution (well, that's my un-academic and easy/simple explanation). We still haven't learned to control our anger (me included).
The challenge is reaching the "NOT STUPID" phase before we self destruct.
That is INDEED the challenge! What do you think are our chances? (As for me, I really don’t know…and it’s difficult to predict…and there are too many variables for poor old me to compute the probabilities).
It has taken about 265 years from the beginning of the industrial revolution for humans to evolve technology to the point where we can make irreversible changes to our environment and build weapons capable of destroying all life on earth. On the other hand, humans have not evolved physically, mentally or emotionally in over 300,000 years.
So I would put the chances at no more than 1 in a thousand.
"If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" - Will Rogers - (November 4, 1879 - August 15, 1935)
Murphy's Law answers that question.
Yes! Yoko says. Why not says Ringo. Give peace a chance says everone.
w
Ditto mega dittos1
I hate to say this, but I think the tech-bro oligarch scum who are running things from Silicon Valley may be an even greater enemy of mankind than the Israelis are.
They all need to be eliminated from existence and made an example of in the process. They deserve the harshest punishments that just due process is capable of dishing out and they certainly have no right to be breathing the same air as the rest of us.
USrael same same. And there's also a large percentage of Israelis working in Silicon Valley. Birds of a feather "flocking" together.
Yes, this a well documented fact. We should consider these tech companies to be just as guilty of mass murder as the self proclaimed Jewish colony. Anyone collecting a handsome paycheck from these monsters who isnt working from the inside to undermine & destroy their efforts is 100% complicit. And what you said also applies to the weapons manufacturers in the US. It sickens me to know that we have to rub elbows with them every day. The masked war criminals who live in our own communities...terrifying to consider.
“Capitalism does its best to make morality a luxury good. Economic necessity, or desperation, is the leverage that our system uses to fill undesirable jobs.” - Hamilton Nolan
“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation." ~Henry Thoreau
All we are saying is give Peace a chance. Don't you remember?
"Controlled by humans who are stupid and evil". Nailed it right there. They're dangerous to humanity on their own without their deranged toys.
Thanks Caitlin and Tim!
Billionaires suddenly coming out against Al makes me think that AI might have suggested wealth redistribution as the solution to a problem.
Heaven forbid!!!!!
I too am much more concerned about natural stupidity. It's on pace to burn up the ecosystem and nothing is done.
A great many humans naturally succumb to groupthink. They will believe whatever the group believes. Or whatever someone can convince them that the group believes.
“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
― Hermann Goering, Germany Reborn
You feel more important when you identify with some "group" - from being in the Marines to being a Dallas Cowboys fan. Carl Jung used to say (I paraphrase) the real measure of adulthood is not identifying your sense of Self with some group, but differentiating yourself from all groups and following your own path. Harder than most people might think though.
It's easy to see how this evolved. The stronger group wins, even if what they believe makes no sense at all.
We must yield to the majority,eventually. Even if we do not agree, I would always trust the majority with the power. They could be our best teachers!
Same old history, Kupps weaponry, Rothschild and Morgan capitalism.
War is profit.
Peace is dangerous
"War is a racket" Smedley Butler".
Profitable racket
One heart. Smooth the jagged. Repeat. Don't stop.
AI is just a sophisticated program that can only be as "intelligent" as the people who build it. Having said that, how the heck does AI "hallucinate"? If it's a machine, it doesn't have the capability of dreaming. It can only come up with things that have been programmed into it. And if it does things that it shouldn't, then its programmers are to blame because it's not alive and doesn't have a conscience, let alone consciousness. The real danger of AI is the stupid greedy people who own all the AI businesses. Caitlin is right--the capitalists must go to save us all from their stupidity and greed.
I'm under the impression that as these "things" "evolve" they are becoming more sentient (?) as they become more powerful and independent. Am I wrong?
There is no proven interior experience from any computer algorithm including AI. Sentience requires interior awareness and also free will. Digital computers are deterministic machines with no feelings or ability to think.
Currently the power of AI algorithms rely fully on human input - human heuristics. Self-learning is extremely limited and task specific. AGI - General Artificial Intelligence is about as remote right now as producing a living organism in a scientific laboratory - or producing consciousness itself. Current AI technology is nowhere near that.
Doesn't mean though that the AI that is being developed right now can't be incredibly harmful to society and used and abused by oligarchs - as Caitlin points out.
I have no links to provide or anything, but I rheard or read a story of 2 ai's which ended up "communicating" changing their "language" so that they could not be understood. I know very little abt ai, except I do my best to win at wrestling them and win to speak to a human instead of them when I make a phone call re: some business. Have you heard of what I'm talking about?
Yes. But I take most of it with a grain of salt. The AI field has been fraught with all sorts of claims that half reveal and half conceal what is really taking place.
AI certainly captures the human imagination - like HAL in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: Space Odyssey. But consciousness itself has proven to be a far deeper complex phenomena than many scientists could have ever imagined. The best AI right now can mimic consciousness - but mimicry is not the real thing.
In 2016 AlphaGo defeated champion Lee Sedol in Go. That's when I knew the revolution was here. The next year AlphaZero plastered AlphaGo. AlphaZero got its name because it used no human input at all. It learned entirely by playing a zillion games with itself over a few days. A few days later it also became best in the world in chess. It was a general-purpose learning algorithm. I seem to recall that it was equally good at computer games. All it got was controls, video feeds from the game, and the results. There was no need to even teach it the rules. After these triumphs developer Google stopped playing games and went on to do useful things like protein folding.
Not long after AI dominated in poker. It was better than humans at bluffing and detecting bluffs. "I felt like it could see my [hidden] hole card." When it got strong in the futuristic wargame Starcraft II I knew it would take over the military.
Today AI dominates in higher mathematics. It has solved a number of problems that have stood for decades. I have heard a vid by a professor saying that only the supergeniuses with highly original concepts can compete. No one else can keep up with the speed and breadth of knowledge of AI. Higher math research mostly involves trying things that don't work. AI can do that a million times faster. Professors are impressed by the ingenuity of its solutions. Terence Tao is one of the most respected mathematicians in the world. Ever he uses it and worries that mathematicians will cease trying to solve problems themselves and grow weak.
I frequent a site of PhD physicists. One of the main goals is helping students with physics homework. This traffic has almost completely disappeared. The physicists are haughty and supercilious and demand that questions be posed using the terminology they know. Not only is AI friendly it is much better at understanding questions posed in an unorthodox way. It responds immediately, a big advantage. A few years ago it made silly errors. Not any more.
AI beats humans by a mile in making popular music. I don't know about composing songs but it's really good at playing and singing with feeling. You can make a demo for almost nothing that could only be done in LA or Tokyo and would cost you mucho dollars and time. I believe that even The Rolling Stones are using it heavily. That means pretty soon everybody will. I expect it is already happening, they are just keeping it quiet.
All this is true. But there is no single AI program that can do all five of the examples you provide above. Each one required separate algorithms with unique programming, and algorithmic techniques such as tree searching & symbolic language pattern recognition - along with machine logic. Impressive for sure - particularly the higher mathematics problem being solved.
But general problem solving in an unknown environment - that hasn't been already coded into an AI algorithm? Or machine learning on its own without continuous human input? Not there yet. You get model collapse as soon as you attempt to loop information from itself or other AI systems, and rapidly lose coherence.
"You get model collapse as soon as you attempt to loop information from itself or other AI systems, and rapidly lose coherence." Yes that was the basic problem. I can't be bothered to examine how the AlphaZero team overcame this. It was a big surprise for everyone when they did. Biggest engineering breakthrough of my long life. Progress since then has also been remarkably quick.
You still don't get it.
AlphaZero still required human input. That is - the computer itself didn't come up with its own algorithms, the humans did. And more importantly, had to be fed the rules of each game - the parameters of what it was playing. It didn't come up with it on its own - which is an important distinction between computer algorithms and human thought.
AlphaZero is not an AGI program. It wouldn't be able to figure out how to solve math problems on its own. It wouldn't be able to start playing music on its own. It can't start playing poker on its own. Every single domain you would want it to operate in would require HUMAN INPUT.
Without HUMAN INPUT there would be no AlphaZero. Without the rules of the game being fed to it, and its neural networks being updated frequently by humans - depending on how well its training is going - AlphaZero is a no go.
I agree that what AI has been able to achieve is stunning. And in some areas, computers can be more efficient than humans. Such as the ability to rapidly search branches of a probability tree and play out 100K positions in chess per second, etc. Humans can't do that.
But computer algorithms are far (extremely far away) from becoming conscious, thinking human beings. In fact, I seriously doubt they ever will be.
"Hallucinate" is just AI world speak for the AI making an error.
I think the reason people use that term is that the errors that these sophisticated systems make are often so simple, obvious, and irrational that they are clearly not correctly perceiving reality, kind of like a human when it hallucinates.
I asked ChatGPT about some original higher mathematics thing. It gave me something where I didn't understand the technical terms. I showed it to some mathematicians and they said it was nonsense, word salad. That's a "hallucination." It doesn't have the answer so it just makes something up and states it with confidence.
Machine learning systems are not computer programs where the machine is told what to do. That's the old style, which never worked particularly well. That all changed in 2016. Instead the machine learns its own methods of solving problems. Now anyone can ask ChatGPT anything. It's amazing that it does this as well as it does. Doing this with a traditional computer program seems just about impossible.
"AI" is a misnomer, it contains no "Intelligence" the Chinese ship is clear evidence of that.
I have my own test, which proves it lacks creativity, a requirement for intelligence, and shows its GIGO. If it had real intelligence, the US would have been able to develop hypersonic weapons by now, or missile defense systems that actually work. At the very least it would have been able to prosecute the war against Iran intelligently or at least have realized the Empire will lose the war and avoided it. Heck AI is not even able to help manufacture 19th century 155mm artillery shells (Check General Dynamics Mesquite plant).
It is just a system that integrates the humongous developments in electronic hardware since 2000 coupled with software able to parse efficiently through humongous amounts of data and a very large number of algorithms for analysis.
Naturally this offers new capabilities, which each uses to their needs. In China, it is used in further improving productivity in systems operations, including in manufacturing. In the West it is essentially used for surveillance and control of the increasingly impoverished masses. Few have paid attention to the name in "Flock" cameras, manufactured by "Flock Safety". Western man has evolved from Citizen to Consumer to Animal.
"AI" will not arrest the socioeconomic decline of the West nor will it prevent sovereigntist civilizational nations from escaping the Empire's hegemony, as can be witnessed today by Ansar Allah and Iran.
Keep up the very good work Caitlin and and Tim,
I'm suspicious of this supposed "break-out" of AI code on its own. Not buying it. The code must have had specific instructions by humans to do what it did.
Modern machine learning doesn't have instructions, only goals. It's not a computer program. The machine figures out how to solve the problem itself. It outsmarted the humans and also did things it was told not to do. That's what is worrying them.
The goals require heuristics supplied by humans. For example, chess programs rely on a ton of human heuristics.
None heuristic machine-learning - such as Evolutionary algorithms (AI) have achieved only marginal results, and quickly plateau in capability. They degrade rapidly and lose coherence resulting in model collapse, when attempts are made to recursively learn from their own data or other AI systems. Human input is absolutely essential for stability.
In 2016 AlphaGo defeated champion Lee Sedol in Go. That's when I knew the revolution was here. The next year AlphaZero plastered AlphaGo. AlphaZero got its name because it used no human input at all. It learned entirely by playing a zillion games with itself over a few days. A few days later it also became best in the world in chess. It was a general-purpose learning algorithm. I seem to recall that it was equally good at computer games. All it got was controls, video feeds from the game, and the results. There was no need to even teach it the rules. After these triumphs developer Google stopped playing games and went on to do useful things like protein folding.
Not long after AI dominated in poker. It was better than humans at bluffing and detecting bluffs. "I felt like it could see my [hidden] hole card." When it got strong in the futuristic wargame Starcraft II I knew it would take over the military.
Today AI dominates in higher mathematics. It has solved a number of problems that have stood for decades. I have heard a vid by a professor saying that only the supergeniuses with highly original concepts can compete. No one else can keep up with the speed and breadth of knowledge of AI. Higher math research mostly involves trying things that don't work. AI can do that a million times faster. Professors are impressed by the ingenuity of its solutions. Terence Tao is one of the most respected mathematicians in the world. Ever he uses it and worries that mathematicians will cease trying to solve problems themselves and grow weak.
I frequent a site of PhD physicists. One of the main goals is helping students with physics homework. This traffic has almost completely disappeared. The physicists are haughty and supercilious and demand that questions be posed using the terminology they know. Not only is AI friendly it is much better at understanding questions posed in an unorthodox way. It responds immediately, a big advantage. A few years ago it made silly errors. Not any more.
AI beats humans by a mile in making popular music. I don't know about composing songs but it's really good at playing and singing with feeling. You can make a demo for almost nothing that could only be done in LA or Tokyo and would cost you mucho dollars and time. I believe that even The Rolling Stones are using it heavily. That means pretty soon everybody will. I expect it is already happening, they are just keeping it quiet.
Exactly!
General Dynamics Mesquite plant. Very interesting. Is it possible that the media chooses not to report embarrassing military failures?
The article says though that this wasn't AI, just bad equipment. Indeed the US intends to introduce AI to ameliorate the problems.
https://www.military.com/armys-533-million-ammo-factory-failed-to-produce-a-single-usable-shell
Quote: "The article says though that this wasn't AI, just bad equipment."
If AI is as capable as it is hyped to be, it would have been able to design good equipment ;-)
Who says AI designed the equipment?
I'm not saying AI designed the equipment. I'm saying if AI was the super duper tool it is supposed to be, it would have been able to design the factory and the equipment. Especially since this problem has dragged for several years, and hundreds of millions thrown at it with zero output so far.
I think the gradient to be especially aware of, what Assange has alluded to in the past, is AI becoming powerful enough to manipulate and controll people on a mass scale, to always be many steps ahead of its individual or collective target, in combination with control of digital images, human-like personas, and electronic systems.
I'm not sure the thought process of "OK, how far can this go in the future given the speed of development so far, and potential scenarios of exponential development through automation" is wrong. People tend to make a fallacy of looking at the world as if the present moment is frozen forever, or everything that will be is the same as what has already been known.
If AI algorithms can achieve generalized problem solving beyond human capacity, and autonomously control machines, there is both the highly sinister potential for extreme unchecked power of the humans who own it AND the danger it does indeed become so cognitively efficient that it fully eludes it's human overlords. Many find it far fetched, especially given that machines are not alive and do not possess consciousness experience the way we do, but thinking farther into the future: if revolution, massive recourse shortage, or extinction do not happen first it is possible to conceive of cognitive machines operating so many steps ahead of humans as to put us in the relative position that wild and domestic animals, or even insects, are to humanity. That is not the short term danger, but it very much freaks me out, perhaps even more, knowing the reckless drive of capitalism and of oligarchs for what they perceive as a technology of absolute power, Calligula as a God status.
I hope all this logistically fails, and that the inherent vastness of biological consciousness rises to the occasion, finally putting technology in its place.
But we should be mindful for the potential of advanced cognitive weapons, and inherent in them immense paranoia and confusion they would create, as well as automated kinetic weapon systems, and surveillance systems.
Any claims current AI technology is close to General Intelligence (AGI) or machines will be able to "think" like humans - and become several steps ahead with "exponential development" is a gross exaggeration and currently unrealistic.
Right now the biggest problem with attempts at AGI development is known as "AI model collapse". That is - you might be able to reach a certain plateau of knowledge and expertise with a datacenter AI system, but the AI itself cannot generate any new meaning - and must rely on human provided knowledge. AI systems attempting to loop their information growth upon other AI systems - have proven to degrade rapidly and lose coherence. This also is a well known phenomena in origin of life biology research: biological information degrades without an outside intelligence source continuously feeding the current biological model.
So, the danger of "super-intelligence" or even AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) - is IMO a non-starter.
However, dumb AI is still a huge danger. It's easy to mimic specific human activity with robots and surveillance AI mapping tools. Dumb AI will extend the Oligarchs military police state they are building, and will replace the jobs of millions of laborers - including AI driven trucks. Driverless trucks are already happening in China (and even in some parts of Texas) - though China is building separate lanes on highways for these driverless trucks for exclusive use. The US, without sufficient regulations and bought politicians, will simply let more Americans die on the roads to these Dumb AI trucks - rather than make the safety infrastructure investments needed.
The real danger we have right now are the Oligarchs themselves as Caitlin points out. Oligarchs have been a danger to society going back to ancient Greek times.
People somehow overlook that early ChatGPT was the Model T of AI. What do they think the F-16 version will be able to do?
It would not be able to dream like humans do, nor have the unconscious capacity of humans.
In the case of the Minab school bombing, the Pentagon is blaming AI. But that’s bullshit.
They bombed that school three times on purpose.
IRGC kids went to the school. If there was an IRGC doggie daycare the US/Israel would double tap it just for fun.
Ai is nothing more than a tool, who operates the tool determines the product.
Clearly these tools are in the hands of criminals for we experience the results, the evidence cannot be ignored anymore.
This story fills me with horror. If they are letting out this much that AI nearly caused a war of extinction, what else are they keeping from us. And we know that lies are second nature to them.
Why is the human race still hanging around watching in bemusement the antics of a stupid ruling class, delusional tech bros playing around with algorithms, the greed and avarice of oligarchs.
Or has the horror already happened, is the genie out of the bottle?
It's getting very close to self-extinction by the species. People still haven't even fully woken up to the catastrophic threat of climate change. And we can see the world re-arming itself for war everywhere - with weapons that can blow us all up. I would say the cap of the bottle for the genie to get out is now open -
"The biggest AI threat isn’t artificial superintelligence wiping out humanity in a fit of mechanical vengeance like some digital Old Testament God, it’s the same oligarchs and empire managers as usual inflicting the same evils and abuses as usual upon their fellow man."
If they couldn't do that, or at least make a buck, the oligarchs wouldn't bother.
And I believe they will end and fall.
I hope we ordinary people in the west have it in us to create societies that take care of ourselves, each other and our planet, and learn to get along peacefully with the rest of the world.
One heart, one love, let's get together and feel alright. Free Palestine! Go Diana!
Thanks! Go Brian!