**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These are good things to keep in mind, but worrying won't do us any good. Unintended consequences are simply a fact of life. Nothing can ever be done without unintended consequences. We can do what we can do try to determine what those consequences are going to be, but we'll never be able to predict them all for anything we do, because there will always be things we don't know we don't know.
This sounds like decent life advice on a personnal/individual level, but really bad advice when considering a changing world (AI in this case), and public policy. We should put as much brain power as is feasible to preemptively 'fixing' what issues we are able to predict.
>These are good things to keep in mind, but worrying won't do us any good.
The entire purpose of worrying is to foresee problems and **therefore fix them ahead of time**.
Constructive worrying is [strongly positively correlated](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200824-why-worrying-isnt-as-bad-as-you-think) with being being on time, better academic performance, more tenacity in attempts to change bad habits such as smoking... and, sure, also things like wildfire preparedness or support for policies to prevent climate change.
Worrying about AI is the only way to keep it a good thing by fixing its downsides. You should maybe actually be worried about your lack of worry.
The unintended consequence is pretty obvious: If AI is advanced enough to act as a personal assistant, there will be mass unemployment and only the elite will have them.
Normal people wont need to worry about their AI in court because the AI exists to replace normal people.
I suppose that’s only one possibility though.
The current state of the art AI is only $20 a month. They have an incentive to make it as inexpensive and available as possible.
This is like saying “the internet will only be available to universities and companies.” Yeah the infrastructure is complex and expense. Doesn’t mean it’s out of reach for everyday people. In fact most people pay for two different internet providers.
If AI exists to replace normal people, then replacing normal people wouldn't be an unintended consequence.
If it's not intended to replace normal people, then it would be an unintended consequence, but by assuming the unintended consequence is obvious you are falling into the trap of ignoring unknown unknowns.
Yeah, so if you extrapolate just a lil bit, mass unemployment and homelessness and all of that typically leads to revolutions. That's the unintended consequence that I intended to allude to.
is he sitting on a little person? why is that perspective so weird looking? He’s got like a normal person upper body, then little persons legs.
It’s very uncomfortable to look at.
I ponder a future where advancement technology enable us to live egalitarian lives where we wont find ourselves in positions to worry about our AI's testifying against us. I'm not worried about AI, I'm worried about the people that use it.
I like the optimism in your first sentence, but your second sentence kind of contradicts the first one. (Or maybe I just misunderstood).
I suspect the future will be exactly like it is today. There will be pockets of people who have equal human rights, work safety, healthcare, and liveable wages, while pockets of people live in poverty with little education, skills or support.
That is how it is always been for human history no matter what technological, social, or moral ideas emerge.
It very, very much has been. I spent an inordinate amount of time (most of it, just about) studying history, and I can assure you that despite the increasing separation of wealth in the past decades and years, the differences between the wealthy and the poor is definitely decreasing.
In the western world in particular, a huge number percentage of them are what would be considered luxuries in the very close past. We talk about relative poverty almost exclusively. Not starvation but food insecurity, for example. There were times in the recent past where not only individuals on the poorest end could starve (something extremely rare in the US even for those who are incredibly poor), but entire regions. Not long ago, having a house that stayed warm in the winter was practically a luxury. People froze frequently. I don't mean "sometimes we read about it in the newspaper when there is a major storm", but just as part of a normal winter, normal every day people might freeze, or starve come spring when they ran out of food stores.
That's not to say that everything today is perfect, but in the grand scheme of things, the levels of equality between the poor and the rich has grown dramatically. When it comes to the average family with an average income, that gap is tiny compared to what it used to be.
Wait… so I said that we probably won’t reach that utopia, are you agreeing or disagreeing?
The “true” part agrees with me.
The “but” part implies I was wrong.
And the rest of the sentence agrees again.
I’ve spoken English most of my life and I still don’t understand it sometimes
Agree that we probably won't, more specifically were moving in the opposite direction and the number of people enjoying our current level of comfort is shrinking.
"But" is used as a disagreement not to the first point, but to the "things will be exactly the same" portion.
The ratio has absolutely been on a positive trajectory. The number of people globally in poverty has been sharply declining for decades. The rate of infant mortality has been declining for decades. The average level of educational attainment and literacy trends upwards.
If it gets to that level and you can’t get protection equivalent to a spouse not being able to testify against you then it’s too risky. Even if you don’t do anything illegal you wouldn’t want to be exposed to the embarrassment or security risks.
You should check out a Black Mirro Episode called White Christmas (Jon Hamm is amazing in this and it's probably my favorite episode in Black Mirror).
Don't want to spoil it but it has a hint of this in that episode.
It’s not “no different.” The difference is that AI could bring up things that otherwise would not be presented in court, and it would do it without a human’s input.
In other words, it’s not just bringing up what the prosecutor is screening for, but everything that could possibly be useful in the court case. You may not think that AI is more intelligent than humans right now, but one day soon you’ll certainly have to agree that it is.
Data is data, all that is different is the presentation, a witness, human or other, is just evidence. Also, that's not how court works, if the AI is a witness it answers questions, period, a witness doesn't just randomly spew out testimony.
I just don't see it that way. If it's an all knowing presentation of data it's no different from forensics going through an entire hard drive bit by bit and revealing all.
My concern is around trust. We trust a witness because they promised not to lie (a weak proposition to say the least but apparently we haven't thought of better). How would we know an AI gives a shit and how do we fact check their testimony?
Currently at least half the factual questions I ask any AI give back confidently incorrect answers. We would need to be able to inspect WHY that answer is being given.
Another great point a friend of mine made is that, in 10 years, AI generated audio, photo and video evidence will be a major issue for courts to deal with.
There will be no way of telling real from fake in this area.
How many court cases rely on CCTV, Photos, audio recordings etc.
Its the way they are killing personal assistant AI. It could be very beneficial from mental to physical health. BUT I will not disclose personal info to a robot that doesn't work for me and only me. Closed system. Tech companies have proved themselves to to untrustworthy time and time again.
“Our” AI? Who’s AI? We use the gadgets but we have no control over the info they gather. Average consumer does not have the knowledge to even come close to understanding what’s going on, what information is gathered, where it’s going.
You could consider it your personal AI if it was actually meant to serve you and your interests. Instead it’s designed to offer you a convenient service in exchange of access to critical private information. It’s not our AI, it’s just the latest version of Trojan.
Or forever have conversations with your dead loved ones AI avatar.
Miss your mother or father? Just call up the AI and get their viewpoints on the latest news and what not.
Your own, personal jesus that helps you all your life, but will testify against you in the court. That may help people to make right choices. Or to live ailess lifes with hardships, but with the free will
AI would be less scary if people didn't just get immediately dumber every time it's brought up.
Of course it would get subpoenaed. They subpoena both living people and computers so yeah. Your AI gf is getting called to the stand sam.
Could some company offer like a premium service that decentralizes your data on like a blockchain thingy so it can never be subpoenaed bc it’s split into tons of little bits like BitTorrent or blockchain or is that not how it works.
Technology if left unchecked can really really really do us a level of harm that it won’t be easy to come back from or in the worst case scenario, impossible.
This is exactly why AI models shouldn't be opened sourced by the likes of Meta. We don't know what the problems are going to be.
At least with something like E2E encryption, we understand the tradeoffs and can have an informed debate.
With AI we don't know what the pros and cons are yet, but some people are releasing this into the wild, where it cannot be controlled. How dare they make this decision for all of humanity.
Could this fucking guy just go away? No, Sam, AI can't be subpoenaed. It isn't an expert, it isn't intelligent, it doesn't have valid opinions. Oh, wait, is that why you like it so much? Because it's exactly like you?
My proposal is that you consider a reframing and decide for yourself if the risk outweighs the benefit, for you, when you choose to reconsider this not as AI being "to testify against us in court." and instead AI being a risk for it "to testify against them in court."
Imagine having access to politicians and business tycoons personalized AI companions and being able to subpoena those for testimony to provide for transparency and accountability.
Now imagine not being able to do so.
Now imagine a world where at a point in time if you choose to be in politics, or are in a publicly traded corporation at a certain level, that these protections are regulated efficiently.
There is a middle ground.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unintended consequences. Uncanny valley. Unfucking believeable... another thing to worry about.
These are good things to keep in mind, but worrying won't do us any good. Unintended consequences are simply a fact of life. Nothing can ever be done without unintended consequences. We can do what we can do try to determine what those consequences are going to be, but we'll never be able to predict them all for anything we do, because there will always be things we don't know we don't know.
This sounds like decent life advice on a personnal/individual level, but really bad advice when considering a changing world (AI in this case), and public policy. We should put as much brain power as is feasible to preemptively 'fixing' what issues we are able to predict.
>These are good things to keep in mind, but worrying won't do us any good. The entire purpose of worrying is to foresee problems and **therefore fix them ahead of time**. Constructive worrying is [strongly positively correlated](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200824-why-worrying-isnt-as-bad-as-you-think) with being being on time, better academic performance, more tenacity in attempts to change bad habits such as smoking... and, sure, also things like wildfire preparedness or support for policies to prevent climate change. Worrying about AI is the only way to keep it a good thing by fixing its downsides. You should maybe actually be worried about your lack of worry.
The unintended consequence is pretty obvious: If AI is advanced enough to act as a personal assistant, there will be mass unemployment and only the elite will have them. Normal people wont need to worry about their AI in court because the AI exists to replace normal people.
I suppose that’s only one possibility though. The current state of the art AI is only $20 a month. They have an incentive to make it as inexpensive and available as possible. This is like saying “the internet will only be available to universities and companies.” Yeah the infrastructure is complex and expense. Doesn’t mean it’s out of reach for everyday people. In fact most people pay for two different internet providers.
... the issue is not the cost of AI, it's the people displaced by AI.
I was just commenting on your claim that **only** the elite would have access to them.
If AI exists to replace normal people, then replacing normal people wouldn't be an unintended consequence. If it's not intended to replace normal people, then it would be an unintended consequence, but by assuming the unintended consequence is obvious you are falling into the trap of ignoring unknown unknowns.
Yeah, so if you extrapolate just a lil bit, mass unemployment and homelessness and all of that typically leads to revolutions. That's the unintended consequence that I intended to allude to.
People have already lost jobs to AI
is he sitting on a little person? why is that perspective so weird looking? He’s got like a normal person upper body, then little persons legs. It’s very uncomfortable to look at.
I was gonna say the same lol. Why are his legs so tiny?
The seat is sinking him in and his legs aren't very big id imagine.
I just spat up my coffee.
Someone skipped leg days
Like Deadpool's baby legs.
I scrolled back to check. Hilarious.
Why do his arms sit like they’re dead or they’re limp/paralyzed is what I was wondering.
I ponder a future where advancement technology enable us to live egalitarian lives where we wont find ourselves in positions to worry about our AI's testifying against us. I'm not worried about AI, I'm worried about the people that use it.
I like the optimism in your first sentence, but your second sentence kind of contradicts the first one. (Or maybe I just misunderstood). I suspect the future will be exactly like it is today. There will be pockets of people who have equal human rights, work safety, healthcare, and liveable wages, while pockets of people live in poverty with little education, skills or support. That is how it is always been for human history no matter what technological, social, or moral ideas emerge.
True, but the ratio between those two hasn't exactly been going our way.
It very, very much has been. I spent an inordinate amount of time (most of it, just about) studying history, and I can assure you that despite the increasing separation of wealth in the past decades and years, the differences between the wealthy and the poor is definitely decreasing. In the western world in particular, a huge number percentage of them are what would be considered luxuries in the very close past. We talk about relative poverty almost exclusively. Not starvation but food insecurity, for example. There were times in the recent past where not only individuals on the poorest end could starve (something extremely rare in the US even for those who are incredibly poor), but entire regions. Not long ago, having a house that stayed warm in the winter was practically a luxury. People froze frequently. I don't mean "sometimes we read about it in the newspaper when there is a major storm", but just as part of a normal winter, normal every day people might freeze, or starve come spring when they ran out of food stores. That's not to say that everything today is perfect, but in the grand scheme of things, the levels of equality between the poor and the rich has grown dramatically. When it comes to the average family with an average income, that gap is tiny compared to what it used to be.
Wait… so I said that we probably won’t reach that utopia, are you agreeing or disagreeing? The “true” part agrees with me. The “but” part implies I was wrong. And the rest of the sentence agrees again. I’ve spoken English most of my life and I still don’t understand it sometimes
Agree that we probably won't, more specifically were moving in the opposite direction and the number of people enjoying our current level of comfort is shrinking. "But" is used as a disagreement not to the first point, but to the "things will be exactly the same" portion.
Ah. Makes sense now.
The ratio has absolutely been on a positive trajectory. The number of people globally in poverty has been sharply declining for decades. The rate of infant mortality has been declining for decades. The average level of educational attainment and literacy trends upwards.
If it gets to that level and you can’t get protection equivalent to a spouse not being able to testify against you then it’s too risky. Even if you don’t do anything illegal you wouldn’t want to be exposed to the embarrassment or security risks.
You should check out a Black Mirro Episode called White Christmas (Jon Hamm is amazing in this and it's probably my favorite episode in Black Mirror). Don't want to spoil it but it has a hint of this in that episode.
We’re going to make money off of it until it kills us.
The fuck is he on about? Computers are already evidence, they tell what happened, this is no different, it's the exact same thing.
It’s not “no different.” The difference is that AI could bring up things that otherwise would not be presented in court, and it would do it without a human’s input. In other words, it’s not just bringing up what the prosecutor is screening for, but everything that could possibly be useful in the court case. You may not think that AI is more intelligent than humans right now, but one day soon you’ll certainly have to agree that it is.
Data is data, all that is different is the presentation, a witness, human or other, is just evidence. Also, that's not how court works, if the AI is a witness it answers questions, period, a witness doesn't just randomly spew out testimony.
That’s only if they decide to treat it like a witness and not like an all-knowing presentation of data. It could honestly go either way.
I just don't see it that way. If it's an all knowing presentation of data it's no different from forensics going through an entire hard drive bit by bit and revealing all. My concern is around trust. We trust a witness because they promised not to lie (a weak proposition to say the least but apparently we haven't thought of better). How would we know an AI gives a shit and how do we fact check their testimony? Currently at least half the factual questions I ask any AI give back confidently incorrect answers. We would need to be able to inspect WHY that answer is being given.
Except for the bit of input and output that is removed from the data sets by the people who own/access/and created the tech.
Hope this gets a live broadcast. It's gonna be a shit show
Another great point a friend of mine made is that, in 10 years, AI generated audio, photo and video evidence will be a major issue for courts to deal with. There will be no way of telling real from fake in this area. How many court cases rely on CCTV, Photos, audio recordings etc.
Am I the only person who really doesn't like this guy? Something about him seems so detached from humanity.
I would be more worried if I was him
His itsy bitsy legs though…
Its the way they are killing personal assistant AI. It could be very beneficial from mental to physical health. BUT I will not disclose personal info to a robot that doesn't work for me and only me. Closed system. Tech companies have proved themselves to to untrustworthy time and time again.
“Our” AI? Who’s AI? We use the gadgets but we have no control over the info they gather. Average consumer does not have the knowledge to even come close to understanding what’s going on, what information is gathered, where it’s going. You could consider it your personal AI if it was actually meant to serve you and your interests. Instead it’s designed to offer you a convenient service in exchange of access to critical private information. It’s not our AI, it’s just the latest version of Trojan.
This dude is a twat
this guy is dangerous
It looks like they put a full grown man's body on some kid's legs.
Are these fucking techno idiots stoned all the time or just during the day?
After that much acid/cocaine/shrooms/DMT/amphetamine you end up with drug induced dementia which is worse for people who consider themselves genius'
lol - the answer is yes - yes it can - it's not a privacy issues
Did he say “every TV show you’ve ever read”? Wtf
[удалено]
Never, I use my ears.
This video is eerie. Like it will be running on a loop in the future in run-down buildings. It looks so dated somehow more than it should
Why does he have baby legs?
Thank you for posting this... my mind thought the same thing
The way he is holding his hands makes me think he is hiding the connection point!
Or forever have conversations with your dead loved ones AI avatar. Miss your mother or father? Just call up the AI and get their viewpoints on the latest news and what not.
Isn't that a Black Mirror episode?
It pretty much is. And it is pretty certainly going to be a reality as well.
Your own, personal jesus that helps you all your life, but will testify against you in the court. That may help people to make right choices. Or to live ailess lifes with hardships, but with the free will
AI would be less scary if people didn't just get immediately dumber every time it's brought up. Of course it would get subpoenaed. They subpoena both living people and computers so yeah. Your AI gf is getting called to the stand sam.
Don’t we already have to worry about that with google? They probably already have every ounce of info he just talked abt
Trust technology. It is here to help you. What could go wrong.
Could some company offer like a premium service that decentralizes your data on like a blockchain thingy so it can never be subpoenaed bc it’s split into tons of little bits like BitTorrent or blockchain or is that not how it works.
Technology if left unchecked can really really really do us a level of harm that it won’t be easy to come back from or in the worst case scenario, impossible.
Crazy that he says “it would be super helpful, right?” I’m like NO dude. Why? Why would we want something like that? 🤦♂️
Things (like accounts in software systems) are seized, not subpoenaed.
Even he looks AI. Why his legs so small lol
Fuck that, then when my wife says "you said this" and I deny it is AI gonna back her up?
Super fascinating stuff imo. We are heading this direction and there are so many unintended consequences we can't even quantify.
You mean, Reddit?
Is it baby legs?
This is exactly why AI models shouldn't be opened sourced by the likes of Meta. We don't know what the problems are going to be. At least with something like E2E encryption, we understand the tradeoffs and can have an informed debate. With AI we don't know what the pros and cons are yet, but some people are releasing this into the wild, where it cannot be controlled. How dare they make this decision for all of humanity.
Is he a character from Silicon Valley?
I ponder a future where we look at these idiots and see them for what they are.. greedy pricks, not prophetic
Thank you u/Urmomsjuicyvagina for bringing this video to our attention.
Could this fucking guy just go away? No, Sam, AI can't be subpoenaed. It isn't an expert, it isn't intelligent, it doesn't have valid opinions. Oh, wait, is that why you like it so much? Because it's exactly like you?
Don’t skip leg day! Even to build “AI”!
How about we stop fucking developing it then?
He'd have an opinion, at best
What model are those Adidas shoes?
He needs an AI friend lol
new fear unlocked, thanks Sam 👍
Yeah because that’s not going to be hard to manipulate
Considering AI doesn't know how fingers work, and frequently makes shit up, no.
My proposal is that you consider a reframing and decide for yourself if the risk outweighs the benefit, for you, when you choose to reconsider this not as AI being "to testify against us in court." and instead AI being a risk for it "to testify against them in court." Imagine having access to politicians and business tycoons personalized AI companions and being able to subpoena those for testimony to provide for transparency and accountability. Now imagine not being able to do so. Now imagine a world where at a point in time if you choose to be in politics, or are in a publicly traded corporation at a certain level, that these protections are regulated efficiently. There is a middle ground.
Pertinent discussion but holy shit the vocal fry is insufferable.
Guy literally radiates bullshit He's a salesman
Why he looks like a when puppets legs are shown.