nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

A letter calls for policymakers to do more to understand and respond to potential disruptions from artificial intelligence.

  • nymnympseudonym@piefed.socialOPEnglish
    61·
    2 days ago

    Have you actually read their statement? It’s rather short. https://www.wemustactnow.ai/

    1. AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years.

    2. This could drive an unprecedented transformation of our economy, larger than the Industrial Revolution, but unfolding over a vastly shorter time frame. It could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards.

    3. Economists, policymakers and technology leaders must act now to understand the economics of transformative AI and to build the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society.

    • kayazere@feddit.nlEnglish
      62·
      2 days ago

      None of that questions if we should be building AI in the first place.

      Who stands to benefit when AI is developed and has massive consequences on society? I think it is mainly capitalists and global elite benefiting and society losing out.

      Also no mention of the environmental destruction that is needed to build and run AI.

    • vala@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      43·
      2 days ago

      AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years.

      This is corporate propaganda. It very likely won’t. It hasn’t improved meaningfully in the last several years. All the “breakthroughs” have been around agentic harnesses and not the models themselves.

      Either way, we’ve had models that are good enough to support the actual real world use cases for LLMs since some time last year.

      Having people think progress is about to explode is benefiting share holders.

    • variaatio@nord.pubEnglish
      21·
      2 days ago

      Well point 1is classic salesman ship. “Investors, get in on the ground floor, this thing is going to the moon”.

      Also in labour relations “Unions, workers accept this worse deal for you or swear on my grandma’s grave we replace you with soon to be super powerful AI”.

      There is no way of knowing will or will not LLMs radically improve and lead to radical change. Since we have no way of knowing does someone say resolve the hallucinating and being confidently wrong issues. Not atleast with current probability models, since that random number throw (that is necessary for the whole thing to work) has that chance to land bad. There is no way without fundamentally different base model to give hard orders like “never do that”. There is always the chance 1% and 0,1% throws happen.