Ana Rosca argues that human control and regulation of AI prevents it from being a threat (6/8)

[@tomekczajka]

She says that AI is not yet a threat because it is not yet powerful enough. But that's precisely what makes it a "threat" rather than a "domination disaster"!

[@tschorsch]

She disproved her own argument. In order for AI to not become a serious danger to humanity, even according to her, it requires very serious regulation and international agreements. Legislation, especially international legislation is slow and almost always only reacts after there is a problem. Look at how inadequate climate change regulation is. If AI is ever properly and effectively regulated, it will be after there is already a serious, possibly very dangerous, crisis.

[@delubiod1970]

There's no such thing as Climate Change. Move over....

[@1duivin]

Human direction? Human controle and regulation? Who is to be trusted? Will there also be a kill switch for the humans programming AI?

[@liverworm9917]

Obviously, it would come from the people who know best for us. We know that they know best for us because they scream at us if we think for ourselves, and that must mean something--right?

[@zephaniahdejene1746]

Bingo. Labeling, brain control, human supremacy, topic change.

[@neverendingstudent]

While I disagree with most of her points anywhere from mild disagreement to very strong, I feel she did a far better and more professional job of presenting her position than many of the other speakers on the side of 'AI not an existential threat'. This was a more enjoyable and higher quality portion of the discussion for that difference.

[@tschorsch]

Human control cannot be relied on to limit the negative aspects of AI. There are too many bad actors that are going to misuse AI and current political systems are not competent enough or incented enough to provide sufficient regulation and control. Even when there is regulation, it will be very hard to prove and it's unlikely that punishment will be significant enough to deincetivize bad actors.

[@tomekczajka]

The claim that "AI lacks understanding" is already false, and will become even more false in the future.

[@ikotsus2448]

"we have the means to enforce preventative measures and avoid AGI becoming an existential threat" ...eeeehh which we are not doing, soooo...

[@robertbell1236]

AI cyborgs in the future are not gonna care about legislation.they have mind of their and if anybody was to progame them who would you want it to be,america russia or china ?😂

[@florinavarzariu8020]

We need to look at how the complex the presentation is and how it successfully argues that AI does not pose a risk. it”s part of a debate and she did an extraordinary job. well done!!!

[@OculisOrbis]

I really like her dress!

[@g0d182]

😮😮Meanwhile people have already lost jobs to Ai. It's reasonably already a threat lady ●Source: See Ceo replaces 90% of staff with chatbot

[@AsheAve]

I’m glad this child thinks she understands this. I’ve been studying AI for 30 years and I know it won’t care about legislation. 😂

[@Garium87]

I can barely listen to her; she seems more focused on sounding smart than on making sense, and her arguments are utterly nonsensical.

[@karlstone6011]

In my view, the motion is flawed. It attaches no weight to the risk, nor the belief. It is a true belief that nominally, there is always a risk. Then must the motion carry? No! The significance of the risk is what matters. And it's not that the threat is existential. It's what degree of risk there is, that AI poses an existential threat, to which no weight is attached by the motion. Consequently, we must ask what the motion refers to when it speaks of belief. Belief in the sense of a probability approaching one AI will do us all in; or belief that the actual or potential capacities of AI are such, AI poses an existential threat? It's unclear. However, if we reject the former interpretation, then we are returned to the axiomatic truth: it is correct there is some unspecified, but non zero risk. It's not necessarily out of order to table a self evidently true motion, but grounds for appeal to the presiding officer, as to whether the motion should be allowed.

[@1duivin]

Maybe she’s AI or an Alien, take a look at her right hand, is that 5 fingers no thumb?

[@jasfan8247]

They are sending their most crinchy children!