this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
141 points (88.5% liked)

Showerthoughts

31404 readers
650 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted, clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts: 1

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
    • If you feel strongly that you want politics back, please volunteer as a mod.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ludrol@szmer.info 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

"AI will immidietly kill us" isn't baseless.

It comes from AI safety reaserch

all agents (Neural Nets, humans, ants) have some sort of a goal. Otherwise they would be showing directionless random walks.

The fact of having any goal means that most goals don't include survival of humanity. And there are a lot of problems with checking for safety of learned goals.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'm aware of AI safety research and the problem with setting a goal that at the end can be solved in a way that harms us and the AI doesn't care because safety wasn't part of the goal. But that is only applied if we introduce a goal that has a solution that includes hurting us.

I'm not saying that AI will definitely never have any way of harming us but there is this really big idea that is very popular that AI once it gains intelligence will immediately try to kill us which is baseless.

[–] Ludrol@szmer.info 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

But that is only applied if we introduce a goal that has a solution that includes hurting us.

I would like to disagree in pharsing of this. The AI will not hurt as if and only if the goal contains a clause to not hurt us.

You are implying that there exist significant set of solutions that don't contain hurting us. I don't know any evidence supporting your claim. Most solutions to any goal would involve hurting humans.

By deafult stamp collector machine will kill humanity, as humans sometimes destroy stamps. And stamp collector need to optimize amount of stamps in the world.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I think that if you run some scenarios you can logically conclude that most tasks don't make sense for an AI to harm us, even if it is a possibility. You need to also take vost into account. Bit I think we can agree to disagree :)

[–] Ludrol@szmer.info 1 points 11 hours ago

Do you have some example scenarios? I really can't think of any.