cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/53077671

Smooth Dunk | Bluesky

Transcript

3 panel comic

Panel 1: Red Guy in t-shirt is sitting at a desk being interviewed. He says “AI is going to kill us all”

Panel 2: Interviewer looking directly into camera, says “Well, we’ve heard from the anti-Ai guy. Now let’s hear from the CEO of AI

Panel 3: Wide shot revealing the second interviewee looking slightly confused. He says “I’m the Anti-AI guy”

  • wheezy@lemmy.mlEnglish
    44·
    19 hours ago

    The CEOs saying AI is gonna kill us all now are just trying to get open source models and Chinese models like DeepSeek banned. That the only people we can trust to make safe AI are them. It’s so obvious. Please don’t fall for this “we need to regulate ourselves” AI monopoly bullshit. They don’t care about safety or AI killing people. They want the government to protect them when the bubble pops and mandate them as the sole owner of AI.

    • baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
      6·
      3 hours ago

      They also want to “pause development”, ostensibly to keep it from killing us all. How convenient when their models are hitting a point of diminishing returns as training costs grow exponentially.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    33·
    19 hours ago

    “AI is going to kill us all” is a pro-AI position and I’m sick of people falling for it.

    The anti-AI position is “AI is a marketing term and isn’t actually real”

    • Cheebus@lemmy.world
      3·
      15 hours ago

      Is calling “AI” (llms) a market disruptor even though it’s not actually AI a pro or anti position?

      Im not in favor at all of what’s happening here, but i’m trying to understand where everyone is drawing the line

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        6·
        9 hours ago

        LLMs are productivity software that have some potential to be useful in some industries. The main thing they’re disrupting is the preexisting status of copyright protections and intellectual property; they’re really good at plagiarism, especially in fields like programming and mathematics, in ways that are actually potentially extremely useful but are also mostly untested in court and we have no idea how that’s going to play out. Also? Really potent malware, able to augment human hackers to ridiculous degrees.

        But it’s not intelligent. That’s just marketing.

        • Cheebus@lemmy.world
          1·
          28 minutes ago

          The malware angle has had me losing sleep, not sure from an infosec point how we could keep up without using the same tech

          I’m not even sure really good device hardening is enough because of that reverse engineering angle

    • Albbi@piefed.caEnglish
      12·
      19 hours ago

      But if they don’t push for it, someone else will make the super scary thing! You wouldn’t want that now, would you? /s

  • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
    9·
    18 hours ago

    “AI is going to kill us all…”

    “… But we’re still gonna keep pushing the envelope cause if we don’t make AM, somebody else will”

    • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
      9·
      16 hours ago

      “It’s important to us that when the AI kills us all, it’s an American AI that does it, not a Chinese one.”