• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Has technology ever been a net negative? A post brings that question to the AI debate

    One user argues that technologies can have serious downsides yet still leave humanity better off, with later inventions reducing some of the harms.

    NA
    BS
    JC
    3 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    Discussing AI, a user points to fire, stoves and power plants as examples of technological improvements reducing harms while enhancing benefits. The post argues that smartphones have left people better off despite their downsides. It also calls nuclear technology a net positive overall and argues that nuclear weapons are too, while acknowledging that the latter judgment is debatable.

    Combined views

    102.9K

    3 Sources, first seen 18d ago

    Combined views

    102.9K

    3 Sources, first seen 18d ago

    1.1K likes
    18d ago
    first seen 18d ago
    1.1K likes
    144 comments
    221 saves
    256 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    144 comments
    221 saves
    256 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    3 Sources

    @bschollQuick thoughts on AI: When in human history has there ever been a technology that was net negative? What about fire? Fire makes noxious smoke, risks burns, can destroy homes and can kill. But fire liberated us from the cold and let us cook our food. Then we made stoves with pipes — and they were safer and warmed our homes, but still carried some fire risk and had pollution. So we invented the power plant, which solved some problems with at-home fire—and we found ways to make better gas stoves and furnaces. Over time, we've made power plants better and better, reducing the negatives while enhancing the positives. Nat gas beats coal, and nuclear should beat both. So what about nuclear? I admit it's debatable whether nuclear weapons are a net positive or a net negative. I'd argue a net positive—because they ended WWII and made a mass-casualty great-power war unthinkable. But even if you disagree about nuclear weapons, you have to acknowledge nuclear is a technology category broader than weapons: nuclear power, nuclear medicine, and X-rays are part of the same fundamental technology. And there's no question nuclear writ large is a massive net positive for humanity. What about smartphones? They've certainly had downsides we need to take seriously — but it's obvious we are better off now than we were in the flip phone or landline era. This is the typical story of technology. And it's the arc of progress that lifted humanity out of the wilderness, that freed 90% of the population from back-breaking farm work while virtually eliminating famine, that enables any human with a tap of a finger to access the sum total of human knowledge, that allows us to enjoy comfortable climate-controlled environs any time of the year in any outdoor climate. My conclusion is: every technology has pros and cons. The cons are real—and the pros always outweigh the cons. As technology evolves, the improvements enhance the pros while reducing the cons. So what about AI? The question is not: are there cons with AI? Obviously there are; technology always has cons. The question is: are the pros going to outweigh the cons? Right now, with AI in its current state, it's not even close. The pros dramatically outweigh the cons. AI enables anyone to have a personal tutor. To offload repetitive and boring work. Anyone with an idea can become a creator and a software engineer. Individuals and small teams can do what used to take gigantic teams and big budgets. Our cars are becoming safer. Etc. Sure — we don't want AI teaching kids how to make nuclear bombs or bioweapons. We don't want hallucinating AI weapons. There are cons to be managed, solved, reduced, and eventually eliminated. History shows us that as technology develops, the pros are enhanced while the cons are reduced. So if we want better, more useful AI with fewer downsides — we need to accelerate AI development, not slow it down.
    @navalRT @bscholl: Quick thoughts on AI: When in human history has there ever been a technology that was net negative? What about fire? Fire mak…
    @jasoncrawfordI think “accelerate vs. slow down” is the wrong question. We should figure out what is necessary to develop safe, beneficial AI—among other things, AI that doesn't lie, cheat, or break the law. And we should do that as fast as possible, but no faster. This probably means a slower pace of *capability development* than if we were to just accelerate capabilities as much as possible, without regard to AI being ethical, lawful, etc. But acceleration with no steering is not how to maximize the human benefit of AI. By analogy, we could introduce drugs to market a lot faster if we didn't bother to test them. But “number of drugs on the market (some of which are toxic, oops)” is not what we want to optimize for. You're right that “as technology develops, the pros are enhanced while the cons are reduced.” But *this doesn't happen automatically.* It's not a natural side-effect of technology development. It's due to deliberate, targeted effort. (And historically, it has often come only after tragedy and death—getting ahead of that is not a bad idea.) I think “pacing” is a decent concept and term for this, although I still think it should be less focused on speed, and more focused on being extremely disciplined about safety practices. More here: https://newsletter.rootsofprogress.org/p/solutionism-part-2

    3 Sources

    @bschollQuick thoughts on AI: When in human history has there ever been a technology that was net negative? What about fire? Fire makes noxious smoke, risks burns, can destroy homes and can kill. But fire liberated us from the cold and let us cook our food. Then we made stoves with pipes — and they were safer and warmed our homes, but still carried some fire risk and had pollution. So we invented the power plant, which solved some problems with at-home fire—and we found ways to make better gas stoves and furnaces. Over time, we've made power plants better and better, reducing the negatives while enhancing the positives. Nat gas beats coal, and nuclear should beat both. So what about nuclear? I admit it's debatable whether nuclear weapons are a net positive or a net negative. I'd argue a net positive—because they ended WWII and made a mass-casualty great-power war unthinkable. But even if you disagree about nuclear weapons, you have to acknowledge nuclear is a technology category broader than weapons: nuclear power, nuclear medicine, and X-rays are part of the same fundamental technology. And there's no question nuclear writ large is a massive net positive for humanity. What about smartphones? They've certainly had downsides we need to take seriously — but it's obvious we are better off now than we were in the flip phone or landline era. This is the typical story of technology. And it's the arc of progress that lifted humanity out of the wilderness, that freed 90% of the population from back-breaking farm work while virtually eliminating famine, that enables any human with a tap of a finger to access the sum total of human knowledge, that allows us to enjoy comfortable climate-controlled environs any time of the year in any outdoor climate. My conclusion is: every technology has pros and cons. The cons are real—and the pros always outweigh the cons. As technology evolves, the improvements enhance the pros while reducing the cons. So what about AI? The question is not: are there cons with AI? Obviously there are; technology always has cons. The question is: are the pros going to outweigh the cons? Right now, with AI in its current state, it's not even close. The pros dramatically outweigh the cons. AI enables anyone to have a personal tutor. To offload repetitive and boring work. Anyone with an idea can become a creator and a software engineer. Individuals and small teams can do what used to take gigantic teams and big budgets. Our cars are becoming safer. Etc. Sure — we don't want AI teaching kids how to make nuclear bombs or bioweapons. We don't want hallucinating AI weapons. There are cons to be managed, solved, reduced, and eventually eliminated. History shows us that as technology develops, the pros are enhanced while the cons are reduced. So if we want better, more useful AI with fewer downsides — we need to accelerate AI development, not slow it down.
    @navalRT @bscholl: Quick thoughts on AI: When in human history has there ever been a technology that was net negative? What about fire? Fire mak…
    @jasoncrawfordI think “accelerate vs. slow down” is the wrong question. We should figure out what is necessary to develop safe, beneficial AI—among other things, AI that doesn't lie, cheat, or break the law. And we should do that as fast as possible, but no faster. This probably means a slower pace of *capability development* than if we were to just accelerate capabilities as much as possible, without regard to AI being ethical, lawful, etc. But acceleration with no steering is not how to maximize the human benefit of AI. By analogy, we could introduce drugs to market a lot faster if we didn't bother to test them. But “number of drugs on the market (some of which are toxic, oops)” is not what we want to optimize for. You're right that “as technology develops, the pros are enhanced while the cons are reduced.” But *this doesn't happen automatically.* It's not a natural side-effect of technology development. It's due to deliberate, targeted effort. (And historically, it has often come only after tragedy and death—getting ahead of that is not a bad idea.) I think “pacing” is a decent concept and term for this, although I still think it should be less focused on speed, and more focused on being extremely disciplined about safety practices. More here: https://newsletter.rootsofprogress.org/p/solutionism-part-2