adrians1

2 seconds after AI cures cancer: "I know why the cancer doctors weep"

Oh, sorry. 99% of the time.

We're not much better than our ancestors. We'd like to think we are, because we're much more intelligent and have access to more information.

But we really aren't. We're still driven by irrational sentiments and fears. We hate AI because it's new and feels icky, and will bring change and we don't like change. We would prefer the 2020s to be frozen in time forever and ever (although we're more than happy to benefit from progress that happened before our time, which upended the lives of other people long dead).

So that's it, there's no argument. The only argument is "I hate AI because fuck it", which is much more sincere. I don't need to hear about water or electricity or cognitive decline or any other made up stuff that sounds intellectual.

If you oppose LLMs and the field because of pure irrational instinct, like those people in the past, you can just state it outright, no need for complicated arguments.

Of course. Those people back then were stupid and irrational and couldn't see they were wrong.

Today we are much more enlightened and smart, and our convoluted arguments, that sound very smart and somehow reach the same conclusion that the technology must be stopped, are totally right. We're not opposed to AI due to irrational fear and NIMBYism, like those simpletons before.

Remember the debate about how nuclear was stopped in the 70s because of NIMBYism? We are now wondering "how could people then be so stupid and shortsighted?". Well, there you go, here's history repeating before our eyes.

> Why Does Everyone Hate AI?

Because it was invented after they were 35.

"1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

I don't get what I should be angry about here? That Bill Gates wrote something when he was 20? 20 year olds say stupid things all the time. Think about you when you were 20.

Given that, according to the ban proponents own words, social media algorithms are addictive as hell and impossible to resist, what do they think it will happen to those children after 16?

Do you really believe that they will magically be "immune"? Even adults are addicted to social media, and it didn't even exist back when they were teens.

AI researchers are just as prone as everyone else to be self-delusional.

This is what people don't appreciate when quoting those statistics about how self-driving cars are safer than humans: when a human driver causes an accident, it was because that particular person did something wrong. When a self-driving car handles a situation wrongly that's a big issue, because all the self-driving cars run the same software.

Agree, it's a serious vulnerability, but it's not exploitable remotely.

> Remote attacks work by first exploiting an unpatched vulnerability in a browser, media player, or other app and using the administrative control gained to replace the legitimate logo image processed early in the boot process with an identical-looking one that exploits a parser flaw.

I don't get the point of this. Any vulnerability that requires local access can be exploited if you first get remote code execution through another vulnerability. Also, exploiting the browser or the media player doesn't give you admin privileges, you need another privilege escalation exploit for that.

Not true, most AI doomers are actually worried about Skynet.