Due to AI: Now is the best time to be alive? But not 10 years from now?

[GammaGlobulin]

Dear Folks,

 

Do you agree with both statements/questions in the headline of this Topic?

 

Do you disagree?

 

This is not a Yes/No questionnaire.

 

These are Essay Questions.

 

Therefore, get out your Blue Books, and please reply with your thoughts.

 

This is not a pass/fail exercise, obviously.

 

Rather, this is one of those very deep philosophical Topics.

 

Please do your best.

 

You will be judged by your writing, and your creativity, as is always the case, around here.

 

Try your best, even if you might not, at first, think you are up to the task of thinking.

 

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

As always….

Gamma

[hankypankee]

The best time to be alive was the eighties and nineties. After Y2K, and especially with the invention of the iPhone and the rise of social media, everything started going downhill rapidly.
 

The smartphone has been an incredibly useful tool; for communication, information, navigation, financial transactions, music, photography, and more. But in the hands of younger generations, it has stunted intellectual development. These devices have proven far more beneficial for adults who had already developed intellectually by the time smartphones became mainstream.

 

AI is another brilliant, powerful tool, an exceptional enhancement that further expands our ability to access and interact with information through advanced technology. It’s simply another addition to the digital toolbox.

 

Ten years from now, things will likely be even worse, not because of technology, but due to tribalism, environmental collapse, war, and the steady rise of ignorance and lack of self-awareness in society.

 

I could keep going, but the more I say, the more grim the outlook becomes, and what I’ve said already is more than the average mind is willing or able to fully grasp. 

[Gandtee]

Born in London in 1933, I've experienced many bad bits but also the good bits. The late fifties through to the seventies were the best for me. Now? I'm just glad that I am ninety-one and not nineteen. I doubt I'll be around in ten years' time. But who knows?

[GammaGlobulin]

28 minutes ago, Gandtee said:

Born in London in 1933, I've experienced many bad bits but also the good bits. The late fifties through to the seventies were the best for me. Now? I'm just glad that I am ninety-one and not nineteen. I doubt I'll be around in ten years' time. But who knows?

 

You mean:  Due to AI?

 

I mean, this was the Topic....

Right?

 

DUE TO AI:  Blah, blah....

 

Did they have AI back then, in 1933?

 

Note: CONGRATULATIONS for living this long, so far.  Hope you break 120, and I am sure that you will.

 

Note2:  What is your golf handicap, by the way?

 

Note3:  You are one who might have the best perspective on the course of things.  The older we become, the better our perspective in some respects.

 

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

45 minutes ago, hankypankee said:

Ten years from now, things will likely be even worse, not because of technology, but due to tribalism, environmental collapse, war, and the steady rise of ignorance and lack of self-awareness in society.

 

 

So then, you are completely discounting the impact of AI, during the period from now to "ten years from now"?

 

Is this what you are saying?

 

You are saying that due to environmental collapse and imminent war, AI, and AI development, will prove to be completely inconsequential, since any effects due to AI will be preempted by the other forces you mention?  This might prove to be true.

 

[save the frogs]

No, we're in the transition phase.

 

So 10 years from now, a lot of things will change.

Hard to say if it's "the best time to be alive". Some people don't like changes.

 

Self-driving cars are coming out this June from Elon Musk. I like those that concept, but eventually driving will be banned. But that might take 100 years. But people who love to drive may not like it.

 

There is no "best". It depends what you like. 

 

Also, we don't know the negative impacts of AI yet. We have to let the genie out of the bottle first. 

 

What is your P(Doom)? (probability of doom) ... Everyone needs to come up with a number.

 

 

 

 

 

[Negita43]

60's in the UK was great - sex, drugs and rock n Roll (well two out of 3 for me) - internet hardly started - AI meant artificial insemination and Government wasn't too powerful.

[Gandtee]

18 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

You mean:  Due to AI?

 

I mean, this was the Topic....

Right?

 

DUE TO AI:  Blah, blah....

 

Did they have AI back then, in 1933?

 

Note: CONGRATULATIONS for living this long, so far.  Hope you break 120, and I am sure that you will.

 

Note2:  What is your golf handicap, by the way?

 

 

In 1933 we had real intelligence, not artificial. Golf? Why spoil a good walk? Thanks for your good wishes.

[hankypankee]

40 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

So then, you are completely discounting the impact of AI, during the period from now to "ten years from now"?

 

Is this what you are saying?

 

You are saying that due to environmental collapse and imminent war, AI, and AI development, will prove to be completely inconsequential, since any effects due to AI will be preempted by the other forces you mention?  This might prove to be true.

 

You clearly don’t understand AI, so it’s hard to take anything you’re saying about it and your grandiose apocalyptic fantasies about it seriously. AI isn’t sentient, it doesn’t think, and it’s certainly not self-aware. It’s just an advanced tool that aggregates and organizes information from online sources. That’s it. A glorified information aggregator with a sleek interface designed to mimic human communication. You've watched too many Terminator and Matrix reruns. 

 

It’s not any smarter than a search engine, it’s just better at sounding like a person. But somehow, you’ve been fooled into thinking it’s something more. If you want to keep fantasizing about how it’s going to shape or control the future, go ahead. I won’t be joining you in that confused delusion.

 

AI is just another tool. And like all tools, it functions based on the input it receives. Garbage in, garbage out. It isn’t in control of anything.

 

The real threats aren’t artificial, they’re natural. You should be more worried about Mother Nature, about floods, food shortages, and the growing number of places becoming unlivable resulting in forced, human, mass migrations. Or better yet, about weapons of mass destruction. That’s where the real danger lies, not in a chatbot that rearranges text.

[Harrisfan]

Today is the only day that exists

[GammaGlobulin]

11 minutes ago, Gandtee said:

In 1933 we had real intelligence, not artificial. Golf? Why spoil a good walk? Thanks for your good wishes.

 

a.  Yes.  Golfing while walking is just far too frustrating and aggravating.  I stopped golfing long ago.

b. Since you have lived this far, then you will break 120.

c. Never worry about your golf handicap...because...it will shorten your life expectancy.

 

 

[Gottfrid]

Yep, my grandfather also had such questions and his relatives before that. 

[GammaGlobulin]

53 minutes ago, hankypankee said:

You've watched too many Terminator reruns.

 

But, who does not like Arnold?

 

I understand what you are saying.

You are saying the same thing as my fellow alum, Chomsky.

 

However, I see further than Chomsky, now.

I hope you will too, one day, before it's too late.

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

28 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

relatives

 

Presumably, they were his ancestors?

[hankypankee]

30 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I understand what you are saying.

You are saying the same thing as my fellow alum, Chomsky.

 

However, I see further than Chomsky, now.

I hope you will too, one day, before it's too late.

There’s no actual basis for your ominous fear-mongering. If you want to change anyone’s opinion, you need to offer something substantive, not just your own paranoia dressed up as prophecy. But I realize you can’t. Not because I’m dismissing your opinion out of hand, but because there’s simply nothing factual to support these grandiose, Mad Max-style dystopian fantasies you keep pushing.

 

As I’ve already explained, you’re looking in the wrong place. The computer sitting on your desk isn’t going to end the world. The real threat isn’t AI, it’s Mother Nature and the very real weapons of mass destruction controlled by unhinged world leaders. Those are the tangibles, the actual risks. But instead, you’re fixated on the intangible. Maybe because dystopian fantasies are more exciting, but let’s be honest, they’re also far less realistic.

 

So if you want to be taken seriously with your tropes like ‘before it’s too late’ and ‘I see further now,’ then drop the theatrics and start backing it up with something real. Put some actual meat on the bone.

[metisdead]

An off topic troll post has been removed.

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, Harrisfan said:

Today is the only day that exists

 

Indeed 

 

right now right here

[Gottfrid]

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Presumably, they were his ancestors?

Yeah, that´s right! But have you heard of such that are not related?

[GammaGlobulin]

18 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Yeah, that´s right! But have you heard of such that are not related?

 

I have never heard of such a thing that ancestors were not related to their descendants....so far, at least.

I just thought I would help you clarify the relationship, a bit further.....and No Charge...

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, hankypankee said:

So if you want to be taken seriously with your tropes like ‘before it’s too late’ and ‘I see further now,’ then drop the theatrics and start backing it up with something real. Put some actual meat on the bone.

 

Sure.

 

What I am stating is that an AI need not be sentient, or have gained any semblance of sentience, for it to spell the doom and destruction to ALL mankind.

There are many possible scenarios, such as a minor error or misinterpretation of some command, or some automated direction.

 

It is already the case that much of the performance of AIs is rather opaque.

 

Then, as I already stated, once you get to superhuman coding, and let the coding run for days or months, in order to complete some desired task, there is no assurance that just one tiny thing might go wrong...one tiny thing out of 100-billion tiny things.

 

So, even if AI never reaches self-awareness, or never reaches the point where it develops motivations unto itself, there is plenty that can go wrong, and will go wrong.

 

Please feel free to express any contrary opinion you like.

It's a free world.....

 

For now, that is.....

 

 

[hankypankee]

5 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Sure.

 

What I am stating is that an AI need not be sentient, or have gained any semblance of sentience, for it to spell the doom and destruction to ALL mankind.

There are many possible scenarios, such as a minor error or misinterpretation of some command, or some automated direction.

 

It is already the case that much of the performance of AIs is rather opaque.

 

Then, as I already stated, once you get to superhuman coding, and let the coding run for days or months, in order to complete some desired task, there is no assurance that just one tiny thing might go wrong...one tiny thing out of 100-billion tiny things.

 

So, even if AI never reaches self-awareness, or never reaches the point where it develops motivations unto itself, there is plenty that can go wrong, and will go wrong.

 

Please feel free to express any contrary opinion you like.

It's a free world.....

 

For now, that is.....

 

 

 

Still a very weak hypothetical. You’re basically just describing a system malfunction, and malfunctions happen all the time with all kinds of equipment. By your logic, nuclear missiles could randomly fire themselves, or a radar glitch could simulate incoming warheads and trigger an automated retaliatory strike based on a false positive. Yes, these scenarios are technically possible, but they don’t require AI. Those risks already exist and have for decades.

 

But here’s the key point, catastrophic outcomes like that don’t happen from a single failure. They require a sequence of malfunctions and breakdowns across multiple systems. That’s why these systems are built with multiple layers of checks and safeguards.

 

Your doomsday scenario hinges on the assumption that AI would be granted total, unchecked control over some form of high-stakes systems, and that’s a massive leap. I don’t see that happening. Even if AI were involved, any serious action would still require multiple steps and redundancies. It wouldn’t be left up to a single system acting on its own.

 

Honestly, you come across more like someone drawn to worst-case fantasies than someone grounded in logic or real-world understanding.

[freedomnow]

4 hours ago, hankypankee said:

The best time to be alive was the eighties and nineties. After Y2K, and especially with the invention of the iPhone and the rise of social media, everything started going downhill rapidly.
 

The smartphone has been an incredibly useful tool; for communication, information, navigation, financial transactions, music, photography, and more. But in the hands of younger generations, it has stunted intellectual development. These devices have proven far more beneficial for adults who had already developed intellectually by the time smartphones became mainstream.

 

AI is another brilliant, powerful tool, an exceptional enhancement that further expands our ability to access and interact with information through advanced technology. It’s simply another addition to the digital toolbox.

 

Ten years from now, things will likely be even worse, not because of technology, but due to tribalism, environmental collapse, war, and the steady rise of ignorance and lack of self-awareness in society.

 

I could keep going, but the more I say, the more grim the outlook becomes, and what I’ve said already is more than the average mind is willing or able to fully grasp. 

I say even up to 2010..as it never released till 2007 and things were "still fine".

[Gottfrid]

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

I have never heard of such a thing that ancestors were not related to their descendants....so far, at least.

I just thought I would help you clarify the relationship, a bit further.....and No Charge...

Yeah, and I knew that already. The only thing is that I am not so picky with correct words and English like you US and UK guys are. This is an international forum, with base in Thailand. A country that has great English, right? Just accept it, or go cry a bit. I don´t care. As you could pick on it and felt the need the explain, must mean you understood from start. That´s good for me.

[GammaGlobulin]

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

So 10 years from now, a lot of things will change.

 

It looks that way.....

 

 

 

But, of course, at the present time, I am most worried about Sammy's Vocal Fry.

 

What is wrong with the world that Sammy is where he is....due to an incredibly unlucky FLUKE.

 

He was fired.

And, now, like the Terminator, he's....BACK....!

 

We'll be sorry.

 

Even Musk can't get rid of him.....

Gum on the Shoe.

 

Spending 500 Billion on this project will bring change.

 

I just hope there are a few smart adults around to manage this child.

I believe that there are many, including Elon, who see what I see.

 

We'll be sorry, if Sammy is kept on...Mark my words.

 

At this present time, AI is a good thing, and life is good.

Post-2027, especially if Sammy is kept on, we will look back at this guy, and wonder .....

WHY???

 

Bloomberg Rules, however....

And, so does Forbes, even more...!!!

 

[GammaGlobulin]

4 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

I am not so picky with correct words and English like you US and UK guys are.

 

Have you happened, recently, to wonder about all my misspellings?

And, so, why do you say I am picky?

 

I am one of the least picky people you might come across.

Even in Thailand.

 

Thailand Rules!, by the way....BIG TIME...!!!