Elon Musk: I Tried to Warn You

[Van]

Unfortunately, this dramatically illustrates the problem with AI. AI can be used to determine the best probable course, given certain parameters. It is precisely those parameters that are at issue. Whence those parameters? From fallible humans, of course. AI should never be given carte blanche, as it would be granting dictatorial power to the fallible humans who initiate it.

The problem with AI is not AI, but the inane mentality that imagines computers can be infallible. Anyone advocating that AI be given ultimate decision making power is either grossly ignorant of the limitations of computing* or is intent on its nefarious use.

Yes, but the problem is not with AI but with the scope of its functions, given to it by fallible people. Recent 737 Max crashes occurred in part because the control system was given the ability to override pilot input, even though its input was single failure prone.

Like the people who reject vaccines, those who reject AI's promise of improving life, are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Yes, but the problem is not with AI but with the scope of its functions, given to it by fallible people. Recent 737 Max crashes occurred in part because the control system was given the ability to override pilot input, even though its input was single failure prone.

Like the people who reject vaccines, those who reject AI's promise of improving life, are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Are you claiming cutting-edge AI proponent Elon Musk is saying AI mustn't be used? He's not. Nor am I. Is anyone? The issue is strictly with granting AI ultimate decision making status.

My response is aimed at the wrongheaded notion that AI can or should be granted ultimate decision making power or be relied upon as if infallible and its results imposed on everyone.

Computers don't program themselves; fallible humans do that. Saying the computer "must be right" is completely wrongheaded, yet such ignorance not only exists, but may be pervasive. I've run into such inanity often enough to be concerned.

 

[SGO]

Of course

Those latter two tongue-in-cheek quotes highlight the problem. Making the computer impossible to override, either by design or consensus, is a recipe for disaster.

And the computer replied, "Understood. I'll be ride over."

 

[percho]

Kind of makes one wonder why, God did not want the man to eat of a particular tree, doesn't it?

 

[Van]

Are you claiming cutting-edge AI proponent Elon Musk is saying AI mustn't be used? He's not. Nor am I. Is anyone? The issue is strictly with granting AI ultimate decision making status.

My response is aimed at the wrongheaded notion that AI can or should be granted ultimate decision making power or be relied upon as if infallible and its results imposed on everyone.

Computers don't program themselves; fallible humans do that. Saying the computer "must be right" is completely wrongheaded, yet such ignorance not only exists, but may be pervasive. I've run into such inanity often enough to be concerned.

Please do not put words in my mouth, we have enough feeble minded twits who excel at that idiotic behavior.
Digital controllers make the decisions to control parameters all the time.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Please do not put words in my mouth, we have enough feeble minded twits who excel at that idiotic behavior.
Digital controllers make the decisions to control parameters all the time.

OK. Please don't falsely accuse me. I didn't put words in your mouth. Or if I did, show me where I said you said what you did not say. As for digital controllers, making them impossible to override would be foolhardy. They are entirely dependent on the situation being precisely what they are programmed for and operating without internal fault or failure.

Again, my argument is with certain wrong ideas people may have regarding computing.

Your first post heavily depended on the false notion that employing AI could somehow avoid adopting false premises. It can't. Imagining that it can is wrongheaded. Insisting that it can is dangerous. Legislating that it does, or will, would be disastrous.

People will always have to evaluate whether the results coming from the computer are reasonable and reliable. AI cannot change that. This would be especially true of human language, especially in cases such as you cited in your first post.

 

[Benjamin]

Kind of makes one wonder why, God did not want the man to eat of a particular tree, doesn't it?

Yes, and that is the thing I thought about when hearing Elon talk about AI being more intelligent than people, ...people have a spirit that guides them and they have the knowledge leading to judgment of good and evil - flawed as it is, and these intellectual qualities of the mind, the depth of sense, reason and imagination gifted to us in creation, AI will never match.

 

[Van]

OK. Please don't falsely accuse me. I didn't put words in your mouth. Or if I did, show me where I said you said what you did not say. As for digital controllers, making them impossible to override would be foolhardy. They are entirely dependent on the situation being precisely what they are programmed for and operating without internal fault or failure.

Again, my argument is with certain wrong ideas people may have regarding computing.

Your first post heavily depended on the false notion that employing AI could somehow avoid adopting false premises. It can't. Imagining that it can is wrongheaded. Insisting that it can is dangerous. Legislating that it does, or will, would be disastrous.

People will always have to evaluate whether the results coming from the computer are reasonable and reliable. AI cannot change that. This would be especially true of human language, especially in cases such as you cited in your first post.

I see you like to claim that others old bogus views. You use the old, "are you claiming" and then say you did not imply that I did.

And my first post did not claim AI could not be programmed to accomplish evil purposes, I was making the point AI would be programed to objectively choose consistent word meaning usage, rather than the inconsistent word meanings used in biased translation.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I see you like to claim that others old bogus views. You use the old, "are you claiming" and then say you did not imply that I did.

And my first post did not claim AI could not be programmed to accomplish evil purposes, I was making the point AI would be programed to objectively choose consistent word meaning usage, rather than the inconsistent word meanings used in biased translation.

OK, so you imagine you see that, but then I see it as quite the other way round, and for good reason. You seem to be arguing a point not being made, namely that people are totally against AI. Why?

The resistance is to giving AI overriding decision-making power.

The specific example you used is a good case in point, one amongst those least likely to be solved by AI. The false standards of handling language you described are just the sort of hidden agenda that could be injected into AI.

Again, the issue is not with someone subjectively using AI that way personally, but with attempting to impose the results on others as though definitive, unchallengeable. That is the crux.

 

[Scott Downey]

A concern of mine about an AI is could a demon ever control an AI by taking it over. ( in the future, if they become ever more powerful )

 

[Van]

OK, so you imagine you see that, but then I see it as quite the other way round, and for good reason. You seem to be arguing a point not being made, namely that people are totally against AI. Why?

The resistance is to giving AI overriding decision-making power.

The specific example you used is a good case in point, one amongst those least likely to be solved by AI. The false standards of handling language you described are just the sort of hidden agenda that could be injected into AI.

Again, the issue is not with someone subjectively using AI that way personally, but with attempting to impose the results on others as though definitive, unchallengeable. That is the crux.

No, I was not claiming AI is more of a threat than a nuclear bomb...
And no, I am not advocating we return to the dark ages where people tell me what to think...

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...
And no, I am not advocating we return to the dark ages where people tell me what to think...

Then you really ought to rethink your originally stated position on using AI to impose your own criteria on others regarding Bible translation.

And that Dark Ages allusion ignores reality. Authoritarian systems and totalitarian regimes exist today.

The Dem MSM has already openly expressed their desire to suppress opposing views, and their Big Tech is doing their worst to limit exposure to anything challenging the Party line.

 

[Van]

Then you really ought to rethink your originally stated position on using AI to impose your own criteria on others regarding Bible translation.

And that Dark Ages allusion ignores reality. Authoritarian systems and totalitarian regimes exist today.

The Dem MSM has already openly expressed their desire to suppress opposing views, and their Big Tech is doing their worst to limit exposure to anything challenging the Party line.

Thus all your complaints arise from your need to push disinformation. Got it.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Thus all your complaints arise from your need to push disinformation. Got it.

Perhaps you should stop making such false accusations or at least present something of a case, but of course you’ve got none.You've got the whole thing backward, inside out, upside down—every which way but right.

Disinformation is inevitable. The Bible is rather clear on that point. The foolish mindset that imagines otherwise is a general danger, the very sort willing to pave the way for others to impose on everyone else lies and deception masquerading as truth. It is the AntiChrist way. Don’t fall for it. Don’t be party to it.

 

[Van]

Perhaps you should stop making such false accusations or at least present something of a case, but of course you’ve got none.You've got the whole thing backward, inside out, upside down—every which way but right.

Disinformation is inevitable. The Bible is rather clear on that point. The foolish mindset that imagines otherwise is a general danger, the very sort willing to pave the way for others to impose on everyone else lies and deception masquerading as truth. It is the AntiChrist way. Don’t fall for it. Don’t be party to it.

As I said, your claims of mind reading tell everyone what you are.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

As I said, your claims of mind reading tell everyone what you are.

Yeah, I guess we have different concerns here. Yours is with mind reading, mine is with brainwashing.

No matter how educated or re-educated people are, people will embrace false premises, including those regarding AI. Most likely, AI will not even scuttle the obvious malfeasance of artificially requiring certain meanings of words in an effort to “preserve the intended message.”

Alas, if only the right AI were handy, it could end this exchange properly, by proving you are obviously wrong, and everyone would have to accept that.

 

[Van]

Yeah, I guess we have different concerns here. Yours is with mind reading, mine is with brainwashing.

No matter how educated or re-educated people are, people will embrace false premises, including those regarding AI. Most likely, AI will not even scuttle the obvious malfeasance of artificially requiring certain meanings of words in an effort to “preserve the intended message.”

Alas, if only the right AI were handy, it could end this exchange properly, by proving you are obviously wrong, and everyone would have to accept that.

I guess the chicken little tale was never heard in your neck of the woods. The sky is not falling or being thrown down by the Masters of AI!! Fear-mongers are nothing new. Education, including critical thinking, helps us find the truth in the sea of falsehood. And we can know the truth, unless you want to deny that biblical premise too.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I guess the chicken little tale was never heard in your neck of the woods. The sky is not falling or being thrown down by the Masters of AI!! Fear-mongers are nothing new. Education, including critical thinking, helps us find the truth in the sea of falsehood. And we can know the truth, unless you want to deny that biblical premise too.

There is neither a biblical premise nor promise that anyone on earth would become omniscient. You not only don’t know all of the truth, you won’t.

Scripture cannot be trumped with fairy tales and fables. The Chicken Little allusion is nonsensical distraction.

The flawed view of AI as an infallible arbiter of truth is at issue here. The notion that it can or should be used to impose theological interpretations or positions on others is deeply flawed. Adopting such a notion is to abandon critical thinking at a crucial point. You’ve admitted AI can be used for evil. That would be such a use.

 

[Van]

There is neither a biblical premise nor promise that anyone on earth would become omniscient. You not only don’t know all of the truth, you won’t.

Scripture cannot be trumped with fairy tales and fables. The Chicken Little allusion is nonsensical distraction.

The flawed view of AI as an infallible arbiter of truth is at issue here. The notion that it can or should be used to impose theological interpretations or positions on others is deeply flawed. Adopting such a notion is to abandon critical thinking at a crucial point. You’ve admitted AI can be used for evil. That would be such a use.

Why would someone professing to believe in the Truth, change knowing the truth, into a false claim of knowing all truth. This vindictive behavior by many posters is mind boggling to me.

And note folks, this poster does not even know the passages of scripture that address fear-mongering. If God is for us, who or what should we fear? If God is our Rock, our Fortress, should we not claim that His grace is sufficient for us? Are we not to cast our anxieties on Him?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Why would someone professing to believe in the Truth, change knowing the truth, into a false claim of knowing all truth. This vindictive behavior by many posters is mind boggling to me.

And note folks, this poster does not even know the passages of scripture that address fear-mongering. If God is for us, who or what should we fear? If God is our Rock, our Fortress, should we not claim that His grace is sufficient for us? Are we not to cast our anxieties on Him?

LOL. Vindictive behavior? You are the one who misapplied knowing the Truth to knowing something via AI or critical thinking skills, quite a non sequitur.

Making the ridiculously false accusation of fearmongering for pointing out the wrongheadedness and dangerousness of misusing AI as in your first post is disingenuous. You've already admitted AI can be used for evil. However, you don't seem to believe your own biases could effect that. You should seriously reconsider, because they most certainly can.