kakapo5672

In every war, countless innocent people die due to mis-targeting or other failure modes. At times the casualty count there exceeds military deaths. It is so common that we have a term for it: collateral damage.

So the question is: does AI lower such damage?

If AI had not been used in the attack on Iran, history indicates the death tolls in this regard would likely been much higher.

Not making a political statement or implying support for the war. Just making a point that these comparisons are more complicated that your example.

The worst result would be if these models were any good vs being absolute slop. Then human artists would need to worry. But in fact there is no need to worry at all, as surely people (aside from a few people with bad taste) will clearly see the difference.

As a first approximation, why not? Behavior is generally all we have in front of us, plus any other assorted social signals. Internal mental states are invisible, as is the personal history of the individual. We might note a man beating a kitten on the sidewalk, and believe this behavior sufficient grounds to reduce this person to the category "dick", even if we remained unaware of his high intelligence, his doctoral paper on gender-inequality, and the fact his mother hates him.

It's a true state-change, which makes the argument pretty compelling IMO.

Clearly, some white-collar jobs will be replaced. Hard to argue against that, given it's already beginning to happen. So the question becomes what is the eventual rate of conversion and what is the subsequent economic impact over time? I don't think anyone has a credible handle on that, except to note that it won't be zero.

It takes time for technology to show measurable impact in enormous economies. No reason why AI will be any different.

I've pointed out that these vehicles are quickly become more prevalent, here and (especially) in China. To which the counter is that there plenty of Indonesians to go around.